radiators have no influence on speed
 

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?)

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.

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

didnt try it with the E1 or E3 yet

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...

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

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

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

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...

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

S!

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

As it should

Maybe.. maybe not.. No real proof has been provided as of yet IMHO

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.

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!

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! ;)

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 ;)

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

Ah good Lipfert agrees with me than! ;)

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! ;)

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 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)

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 ?

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.

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.

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 ;)

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! ;)

Jokes? What jokes?

What did I say that was wrong with a 109?

"No offence dude" none taken :-)

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.

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 ?!!

Oh my God!

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

~S~

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

Which pertains to the temperate graph.. which is not what we are talking about, we are talking about how it affected the speed

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

Nope..

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

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

as cheesehawk says!

ace is suggest you to buy glasses

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

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...9/14026pg9.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

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.

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!

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

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

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

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-histo...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

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.

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...

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.

No prob!

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.

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???

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!

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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% ...

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

:grin:
good to know!

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

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!

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

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

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.

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

Let's see it.

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

Poor Nancy

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.

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.

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

haha, good one ;)

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

Which you never provided by the way..

Simple, it is not my job to re-do all the baseless claims made by people like you

No need, Tom already proved you are wrong.

A bet you would loose

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?

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.

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

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! ;)

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?

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?

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!

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

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!

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

So, let me see if I understand you correctly..

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

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

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!

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

Yes, Theory!

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

So, let me see if I understand you correctly..

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

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!

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!

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

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

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

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?

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

I know that you are but what am I?

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

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

AoA is amusing in a raaaid kinda way.

Gladly!

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

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!

S!

This thread delivers...

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.