Quote:
Originally Posted by gbtstr
Nice job, Widar. You put a lot of time into this and we appreciate your efforts. However, here's a couple things that came to mind that you could perhaps address. Perhaps some of these you considered, but forgot to mention, or just went about them differently.
First, the time to altitude (125m to Xm) numbers are probably invalid. I'd be willing to bet there aren't many planes, particularly of the WWII and previous eras, that can climb well at +50* pitch. According to your tests, several weren't even able to maintain a climb at that attitude. If you were trying to test best rate of climb, you'd have to fly each aircraft at its best rate of climb airspeed for a good comparison. For example, the BF-109E's best rate airspeed is around 270-280 kph. Also, I'm not sure if this is what you did or not, but the best way I can think of to test best rate of climb is to start each aircraft on the deck and takeoff, accelerate to best climb speed, then pitch up to an attitude that holds the desired airspeed.
Second, the zoom climb (1km - 3km) and dive (6km - 1km) tests don't mention the starting airspeed. If you start a zoom climb at 700kph you'll go up a lot faster and farther than if you start at 400kph; likewise for the dive.
Third, you don't mention airspeeds for the turn rate and roll rate tests. For the turn test, each aircraft has a "cornering speed" at which it will give the best rate of turn for the smallest turn radius. (Also, there's different airspeeds for best instantaneous and best sustained turn rates - best sustained rates are, as far as I know, at a lower airspeed because most aircraft can't hold the same energy as the instantaneous turn rate requires.) For roll rates, generally, starting from zero airspeed, roll rate increases to a maximum as airspeed increases. After that point, as airspeed continues to increase, roll rate decreases. If you were at the optimum speed for a Spit II during the roll test, but too fast or slow for a Fw-190 your numbers might show the Spit having a roll rate advantage.
Fourth, for the turn rate, as well as roll rate, finding the max performance on those should be based on the the "ideal" sensitivity - something that prevents you from flying around stalled (killing your turn performance) and gives you the best rate/radius. To do that for every aircraft in the list would be difficult, but would probably be most beneficial to the most players.
|
You bring up good and valid points. Every test can be improved and nothing is not open to criticism, when better tests are carried out, even better ones can of course be thought of.
I had thought of the things you put forward, all good points and related to real life as well. The thing is that I tested with the average BOP pilot in mind under combat conditions in BOP. The diehard (test) pilots will take the time to find out what the best speed, altitude and angle are for each aircraft in BOP (which is not necessarily the same thing as in real life) to carry out their test maneuvers at etc.. The pilots that take the time to ascertain this in BOP usually don't need these test results to begin with. If I had done the tests under the conditions that you describe for 20 aircraft it would have taken even more time to carry out than this did. Maybe something for a future project.
Generally most tests, with the exception of the sustained maximum level speed tests, were started after reaching maximum level speed first and then first carrying out a tight 360 degree turn to bleed off airspeed and then letting the speed pick up again for about 10-20 seconds, what one might call combat maneuver speed in BOP terms. I wanted to create a situation where a virtual pilot starts a maneuver directly after a combat maneuver, not one under ideal conditions for each aircraft. Not one test was carried out at sustained maximum level speed, except of course for the sustained maximim level speed test.
Hope this answers your questions.