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.

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...............



.

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

Having the ball centered is one of those 'pilot errors' I was referring to.. Little things like this can add up

Keynote.. not really precise

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.

Which goes back to that resolution thing I mentioned

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 ;)

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? ;)

lol
:grin:

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

Agreed! Log the data as you fly, you will be amazed at the errors you can make! ;)

This place never ceases to entertain me …

Should they have an impact on speed?

Keeping your 109 cool sounds good to me and without a performance hit is even better.

I think there busy trying to make the “game” playable.

Key word here is “assume”

Fact? Please quote your aeronautical engineering data.

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.o...09g-14026.html

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

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.o...9/14026pg9.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

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

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.