![]() |
|
FM/DM threads Everything about FM/DM in CoD |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
A bit of a clarification, I wasn't suggesting you made your tests badly, dear Ivan!
![]()
__________________
Il-2Bugtracker: Feature #200: Missing 100 octane subtypes of Bf 109E and Bf 110C http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/200 Il-2Bugtracker: Bug #415: Spitfire Mk I, Ia, and Mk II: Stability and Control http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/415 Kurfürst - Your resource site on Bf 109 performance! http://kurfurst.org ![]() |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
If the relationships of lift and drag are correct in the model, it will reflect in the best rate of climb speed. Those airspeeds are listed in the appropriate Operating Handbook for the type. I would also suggest conducting saw tooth climb schedules to determine the Vy and Vx of the models in the game. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The speeds used for these tests are those listed in the RAE test schedules so as to replicate the conditions in the test to those of the chart being used to plot the data. These speeds conform with those climb schedules in the relevant Pilots notes.
I am aware of best climb speeds Vx Vy etc and methods used to determine them. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
the 250 IAS is for sea level, it drops over altitude.
For example the Bf109T Alt - 0m's Speed IAS - 250 Alt - 1000m's Speed IAS - 243 Alt - 2000m's Speed IAS - 236 Alt - 3000m's Speed IAS - 229 Alt - 4000m's Speed IAS - 222 Alt - 5000m's Speed IAS - 215 Alt - 6000m's Speed IAS - 208 Alt - 7000m's Speed IAS - 200 So merely maintaining 250kmh for a 109 climb test is actually not its best climb. Just a thought. Last edited by 5./JG27.Farber; 05-29-2012 at 01:13 PM. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
250mph IAS at 50 ft is not the same as 250mph IAS at 10,000ft?
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
No, they aren't the same speeds. At 250IAS@50ft, you're pretty close to really going 250, at 10000ft, you're closer to 300mph.
__________________
i7-920 @ 4.1Ghz Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R 12 GB DDR3 1600 RAM GTX 560Ti with 2GB (latest beta driver) 22" monitor @ 1680x1050 TrackIR 5 Saitek X52 Saitek pedals Win7 64-bit Ultimate "Ignorance speaks loudly, so as to be heard; but its volume proves reason to doubt every word."~Wes Fessler |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Yes I know, thats why I bold'd the T for blind people
![]() Last edited by 5./JG27.Farber; 05-30-2012 at 05:21 PM. |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
I don't see it in terms of speed and climb numbers. All aircraft performance is a percentage range even under fixed standard conditions. Aircraft performance comparision is all relative. The relative performance appears correct. All aircraft have a similar margin of error applied. What more do you want? That is the most important thing in a "simulation". It is much more important than specific performance. You can get the specific performance absolutely right within the percentage range and completely screw up the relative performance. Quote:
You were correct and I only posted to confirm you had the same ones as found for the Bf-109E. You are correct too in not only do you to have to maintain the correct climb speed, you have to fly the test correctly. Climb test generally are conducted by begining at a lower altitude and do not start until the climb is stabilized as well as at the starting target altitude. They end at a target altitude, too. That becomes a raw data point for that altitude band. Typically this is a 1000 foot band with the test airplane begining its climb 500 feet below and ending it 500 feet above that 1000 foot band. In otherwords, 2000 feet of altitude are required to estabilish climb rate data in a 1000 foot band. Those "climb charts" guys like to quote are extrapolated from a few of these points and the raw data converted to standard conditions. There is insturment error, flight error, and pilot error in all it. The pilot does not hop in and start from the runway to reach altitude with the stop watch running and marking the VSI. The chart is an idealized extrapolation of a few data points. Last edited by Crumpp; 05-30-2012 at 06:05 PM. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The relative climb speeds, i.e., the difference between the climb speeds of all aircraft each other are in good agreement with RL.
Since to me there is no difference in the "fighting" aspect if the strategy used was to degrade RAF fighters or upgrade the LW ones. Obviously I prefer that the LW ones upgraded to its RL curves. But if someone is complaining that they were being shot down because the RAF are uncompetitive in climb area I disagree. |
![]() |
|
|