Don't make performances secret this time

[Rama]

Originally Posted by PE_Tihi

Can a plane have a wingspan of 10, 11, and 12,5 m at the same time? Can it have a max. speed of 480, 530, and 565 km/h at the same time?

Wingspan isn't FM data, it's structural data.
About max speed, for each plane type you can find different sources giving you different numbers, and even different reference altitude for max speed.
... and that's including different real flight test data.

Originally Posted by PE_Tihi

Try here, you wont have to calculate anything:

Ahah.... and do you think your link gives the only valuable and universal source??? you must be kidding...
Have you tried, just for ONE type of plane to gather all different performance sources and to compare them... you should try, it will help you to understand the problem...

[LEXX]

Phi::

Lots of people like that way of fight, BnZ, - like you [LEXX] obviously do. To my taste it is a bit disgusting to shoot down someone who doesnt know a thing about it- apart from being unsatisfactory - it doesnt tell me who flies better. Tastes are different, of course.

Yes, WW2 pilots of all nations chose to do it my way when they could. Having to enter a dogfight was considered a failure.

In my opinion, your [LEXX's?] FPS games are more popular for the same reason it is much easier to train an infantry soldier than a pilot- you do not need to know much to get a rifle pushed into the hands. So anyone can play a FPS without bothering to uderstand the flight behavior of a plane or many other things.

Same thing with air warfare. You have to learn the air war environment, even in peacetime, or you die. Clearly you don't know what the air war environment is, but I can't blame you, since no combat flight sim developer has ever modelled it, but have usually focused on arcade dogfight shooter gaming, and most people don't look at the sky and learn what's up there. So no offence intended here.

[PE_Tihi]

Originally Posted by LEXX

Phi::
Yes, WW2 pilots of all nations chose to do it my way when they could. Having to enter a dogfight was considered a failure.


Same thing with air warfare. You have to learn the air war environment, even in peacetime, or you die. Clearly you don't know what the air war environment is, but I can't blame you, since no combat flight sim developer has ever modelled it, but have usually focused on arcade dogfight shooter gaming, and most people don't look at the sky and learn what's up there. So no offence intended here.

BnZ certainly was a best way to survive, and in a war situation I would be using it, too. But we are talking here about a game, not war. It is an adaptable game, it can be played in a number of different maners- you are free to choose one you like.
I am interested in flying skills, and that s the way I play it. You can teach one to BnZ in a short time- outmanoeuvring the opponent using the plane's qualities and energy to obtain a firing solution; shooting deflection from beam and all quarters, well it is quite a different matter, in spite of your derrogatory remarks about arcade dogfight. It is everything else but arcade )))
As said, a matter of taste and temperament.

[PE_Tihi]

Originally Posted by Rama

Wingspan isn't FM data, it's structural data.
About max speed, for each plane type you can find different sources giving you different numbers, and even different reference altitude for max speed.
... and that's including different real flight test data.




Ahah.... and do you think your link gives the only valuable and universal source??? you must be kidding...
Have you tried, just for ONE type of plane to gather all different performance sources and to compare them... you should try, it will help you to understand the problem...

Even for the geometry , as you call it structural data of a plane - you ll find the wingspan of the plane different from the facory blueprint for a centimeter of two- that's production tolerances. You won't find two planes of the same type with exactly the same top speed.
Flight test data of captured planes - oft damaged and repaired in a makeshift manner- can give values lower than typical.
But we re not talking here about centimeters, or a mere 1 m/s of the climb rate ( although that is quite a lot). I am giving you an example where a game plane has been given 50% , 7 m/s more than RL. Now if you find me any source giving the I16 the climb rate even approaching 21.25 m/s I ll buy you a dinner.

I red quite a bit on the matter, you know. Comparing the data from different sources is not that difficult as you may think.
On the link I sent you , for example, there is a test report from the US Navy on the A6M2, giving it an initial climb of 13.5 m/s. Knowing from reading somewhere else that the Navy tested Zero was not in the best condition, I considered this result as being on the low side.
USAAF test gave it an initial climb of approx. 14,5 m/s- lets round it to 15 m/s for a factory new plane. W. Green and R. Francillon books confirm this number.
On the other hand , there is a number of sources that ascribe this plane a fantastic climb rate of 22 m/s, at the same time rating A6M5, a much more powerful model with 16 m/s. Newer A6M5 ,having much lower power loading had to climb faster, so these data were obviously nonsensical.

Now, japanese planes are a bit difficult- they destroyed all the documentation at the war end, but as you see- the aproximate numbers can be found out.
In the case of British and German planes- it is almost a childs play, as the very detailed and accurate documents on the factory testings on the linked page show. So please no mystifications about the different data from different sources.

Just for the record, game A6M2 climbs at approx. 20 m/s

[Rama]

Originally Posted by PE_Tihi

So please no mystifications about the different data from different sources.

Ok... I see... you're an expert.

I will shut up then... I'm just a poor ignorant that try since years to reduce huge discrepancies (up to 20%) in some plane real flight datas (D520 as an exemple)...