Exactly.....whoosh!!!

Of course, the German instruments will always show up as slower compared to russian calibrated instruments.

Now aircraft performance is a percentage range over an median and that instrument error is not outside that range so you will find some agreement.

Baloney....

A considerable amount of maintenance is replacement of instruments. I have had to replace turn co-ordinators, manifold pressure gauges, oil pressure gauges, and re-calibrate rpm gauges.

On every airplane I have ever gotten IFR rated, it required maintenance to the pitot-static system.

All outside of the normal checks and required calibrations.

Acccuracy? You mean flight testing data without understanding atmospheric conditions???

Not very accurate IMHO!!

:grin:


http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...t=32523&page=4

I think blue pilots need a little more good sense, and less talking...

In Il2 1946 we had the same problem, blue pilots crying for improvements in their 109 and 190... now IL2 1946 = gameboy...

In Cliffs of dover we had the same, cry cry cry, Spitfire IIa ripped off Ia too, throtle problems, ridiculous curves of speed, ridiculous behavior over 14k and Sea Level...

Now you guys got over design speed like you always wanted!

great job Blue Pilots! :evil:

Make up your mind.....


Baloney

is this relevant? where has a lack understanding of atmospheric conditions come into this thread?

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...t=32523&page=4

Ah the thread I was hoping you'd bring up, the one where you questioned this particular statement of mine...


I will point you to the attached checklist I used on the learjet, you probably don't know this but a checklist forms part of an operators 'Ops manual' and is a thoroughly audited document and 'must' be approved by the authorities, on the attachment you will notice the very 'abridged and tabular data' I mentioned....

It is funny that you suddenly now know what V1, V2 and balanced field length are....but know you don't just look at a genereic checklist or chart.


Yes, you are required to calculate them. No, you don't have to do it on a calculator and piece of paper....

There is a piece of gear that has been around for a while called an FMC but if you don't have one, then you still have to know the required take off profile.

We went through this already with both the FAR and JAR regulations!!

You know the ones you claimed you don't have to follow as a pilot in Europe??

There is no confusion except on your part.

They will always measure results which are slower than the German's.

Meaning the russian will always reach their measured TAS before the German TAS figures.

In otherwords, they will think the German data is always slower than actual TAS.

KJAC 242358Z 21009KT 10SM SKC 30/M04 A3010

Tell me your balanced field length based on your chart!!

Use a TO Weight of 9752kg's

Nothing generic about that checklist, it's the 'actual' one I used in the Learjet, with the actual data on it 'exactly' as I described it.

We don't have to follow FAR regulations in europe, JAR ones we do, you were the one that mentioned FAR 121.

Yes I am very confused at how you contradict yourself so massively with those statements I quoted, and am further stunned by your insistence that German instruments magically transform themselves into Russian ones when they cross the border.

Finally, no I don't need to do any of your silly little quizzes to prove anything, the only time I do that crap is for examinations, I'm not fighting an internet warrior face off here, I'm calling you out, pure and simple just show me a copy of your credit card sized FAA license or something tangeable.

Heres some more from me, this is 'ME' the same Craig Brierley from the scans of my license doing a job before I wen't on to fly Learjets, only viewable in the UK unless you do some fancy internet trickery I don't quite understand, now are you going to phone the BBC and the HM Coastguard up and tell them they are lying too, perhaps show them some little graphs to prove it? ask them some obscure little.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/britainfromabov...offcoast.shtml

HINT: Check the upper right corner of the forum labeled: "Private Messages" ;) Very, very useful.

No I prefer the public humiliation of Crumpp. Besides, the inboxes are way too small.

Are we really to believe that trained professional aviators and supporting aircraft technicians at the top of their game due to the intensity of war, with experience of constant life or death combat sorties, are getting IAS and TAS mixed up? I find such a thing very hard to believe.

No of course.. you're right! The winking face was sarcasm.

As Robtek states there are to many unknown variables.

What about the captured aircraft condition (crashed? was the propeller?)
Fuel quality used in those test?
Did they used the right boost settings? (IIRC they tested the Dora without MW50 and find it "slow" compared to their birds).
Was the German guy really honest or did he repeat what his master wanted to hear?

We can't ignore these ones, otherwise we could make a call to Luthier: please Luthier, tune down every german warbird's speed... those speed on the documents were only theorical. Listen to that interviewed guy!

I think you're smart enought to understand this... but still I wonder the reason of opening this thread... that was your target?