Spit/109 sea level speed comparisons in 1.08 beta patch

[Crumpp]

Why do you assume I don't know that?

Because your statement is contrary and wrong.

Bongodriver says:
My interpretation of the graph is that that bot the left and bottom figures are radius (note how the lines intersect exactly the same figures on both) and the note on the left just means 'sea level', no EAS or IAS involved, admittedly it is a very badly designed illustration.......what's the big deal?

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=107

It is cut and dry and requires no interpretation. You are just plain wrong.

That is why anyone would assume you don't know that True Airspeed equals Equivilent Airspeed at sea level. If you did know, then you are just lying about it in your above reply.

The performance is radius of turn in EAS.

[Crumpp]

I will let you guys mull over it and post some calculations with graphs. Not to define any specific performance but to see how the relative performance of these airplanes makes them very equal dogfighters.

We can look at the whole picture and examine various performance improvements in each design along with their effect on the combat performance.

We can see how the relative performance in the game stands up.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Because your statement is contrary and wrong.



http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=107

It is cut and dry and requires no interpretation. You are just plain wrong.

That is why anyone would assume you don't know that True Airspeed equals Equivilent Airspeed at sea level. If you did know, then you are just lying about it in your above reply.

The performance is radius of turn in EAS.

No my statement is 100% correct, the graph is turn radius at sea level, would you care to show me exactly where any reference to speeds are made on that graph.

Now kindly remove claims of me being a liar and other accusations....thanks

[Crumpp]

No my statement is 100% correct, the graph is turn radius at sea level

Your statement the graph is at sea level is correct and not the issue.

The issue is you imply that speed is not part of the equation and therefore it is wrong to say it is Equivilent Airspeed.

You do know we cannot have rotational motion without velocity, right?

An airplane that is not in motion has no turn radius.

It is not the fact the performance is graphed at sea level.

In fact, that is WHY it is Equivilent Airspeed!

Bongodriver says:
My interpretation of the graph is that that bot the left and bottom figures are radius (note how the lines intersect exactly the same figures on both) and the note on the left just means 'sea level', no EAS or IAS involved, admittedly it is a very badly designed illustration.......what's the big deal?

It is the claim that you knew what EAS is used for and do not recognize that is questionable.

Does that mean EAS is just a term that you heard someplace or do you know its uses? It is ok to admit you don't know everything. I certainly don't, just ask my wife!

I did not call you a liar at all either. I said either you did not know or you are lying. You claimed to know about Equivilent Airspeed in your second reply but you made the statement EAS or IAS is not a part of the math used to derive the graph published in the book. It is probably NOT done in IAS. While it is valid to do a turn performance analysis in IAS, it is not valid for performance comparision because of the PEC. It is also valid to do it in Calibrated Airspeed but CAS = EAS = TAS at sea level.

The fact is your only point is get the conversation shut down at this point so that we do not get to see any analysis that might not fit a small and very vocal agenda. Don't do that. What will follow is unbiased math that anyone can reproduce given the knowledge of aerodynamics. I will even keep it to the college algebra level so it is easy to see.

I am hoping it will quiet down the critism of developers on their FM's. I think they are close in the big picture and the Spitfire's issue is the heat effects. We can prove that.

Bottom line, I did not call you a liar. I said you made the claim to know something and either you did not fully understand it or not forthcoming about the level of understanding you posses. I have no idea what you do or do not know outside of what you write on these forums. The impetus is on you.

[bongodriver]

The issue is you imply that speed is not part of the equation and therefore it is wrong to say it is Equivilent Airspeed.

merely a case of you making the wrong assumption, I made no reference to equations or any such thing, you were obviously a little over eager to jump all over a grammatical error, I should really have said 'no EAS or IAS refered to'......there.....does that help your blood pressure any?

I have no idea what you do or do not know outside of what you write on these forums. The impetus is on you.

Not really, I provided all the evidence of my qualification...what do you need? a picture of me holding a 'hello Crumpp' sign while actually flying an aircraft?....

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

what do you need? a picture of me holding a 'hello Crumpp' sign while actually flying an aircraft?....

lol

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

lol

[bongodriver]

There is no doubt that there is some sort of demonstrating our superiority ooze about these turn radii graphs... but regardless the figures seem to be about right.

Really?....the graphs were sourced from litterature as far as I can see, nobody on this forum produced them in any attempt to ooze superiority, and you can still say that despite providing your own source which verifies the accuracy?.......

It is entirely another question why this so called superiority is given so much importance

only because it is further evidence to the argument the Spitfire was a more agile aircraft with better turn performance.....whats all the fuss about?

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

and you can still say that despite providing your own source which verifies the accuracy?.......

That is a good point

Initially I got the impression that is what the graph was trying to do..

But based on the table that Kurfurst just posted, I see now the graph is right, just it's presentation was not all that it could be.

Put another way

As the graph implied.. (at sea level)

And Kurfurst table confirmed.. (at 12kft)

The Spit does turn a lot better than the Bf109

At more than one altitude!

[JtD]

Turn radius is for turns at sea level. Estimated best sustained turn. Corresponding turn times from same calculation:
Hurricane I: 17.6s
Spitfire I: 18.2s
Bf 109E-3: 20.5s
Bf 110C-4: 20.5s (was also calculated, with radius of 840ft)