Aircraft peformances, is this joke ?

[pstyle]

Originally Posted by jf1981

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

jf1981,

That link (and in fact this whole argument about performance) have been debated ad inifnitum on these forums for months. There are those who quibble with the data on that page, so simply dropping the link doe not, unfortunately, really provide any impetus in any particular direction...

[jf1981]

Originally Posted by pstyle

jf1981,

That link (and in fact this whole argument about performance) have been debated ad inifnitum on these forums for months. There are those who quibble with the data on that page, so simply dropping the link doe not, unfortunately, really provide any impetus in any particular direction...

I'm conducting flight trials and will pursue that task, and report my findings, feed the bug thread.
And I'm relying on several specialized books available regarding the Spitfire.

The actual flight model is a nonsense.

I have to remind you that's I'm not debating anything.
The devs can do whatever goes through their mind. But I have to say how wrong this is, if it indeed is.
Note that I'm also working on the good side of that game when I can like tutorials, mission building.

[jf1981]

I tested other parameters of Spit Mk I

- Stall speed is too low by approximately 15 mph flaps up, by 10 mph flaps down
- Take off run is longer by approximately 30%

Thought the take off run is not a so big deal, it shows that the reacceleration from medium and low speed time is longer, the performance is not as good as it shall be.

The stall speed, on the opposite, makes for better turns at low speed. It makes the gap between radius of turn of Bf 109 and spit wider than it should be.

[yobnaf]

you are not right. The Spitfire is has a very realistic FM. This is the best flight sim ever !

[skouras]

Originally Posted by yobnaf

you are not right. The Spitfire is has a very realistic FM. This is the best flight sim ever !

try the spitfire from A2A with accusim
you will suprised by the differences

[Plt Off JRB Meaker]

Originally Posted by yobnaf

you are not right. The Spitfire is has a very realistic FM. This is the best flight sim ever !

......This is laughable yobnaf,how would you know this is very realistic,have you actually flown the MK2 Spit in real life,have you actual experience of the Mk2 Spit?

I very much doubt it,yes the COD FM is a good representation of this aircraft,but please,give us a break!....honestly there's too many guys on here getting carried away with their own importance,it's a bloody flight sim for Christ's sake!

[jf1981]

Originally Posted by yobnaf

you are not right. The Spitfire is has a very realistic FM. This is the best flight sim ever !

Talking about performance. The FM's indeed very good, but now the unbalance completely unfair. The spit had much better performances, I get that from many different sources which I do not detail here. Books and websites. Have a look.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by jf1981

I tested other parameters of Spit Mk I

- Stall speed is too low by approximately 15 mph flaps up, by 10 mph flaps down
- Take off run is longer by approximately 30%

Thought the take off run is not a so big deal, it shows that the reacceleration from medium and low speed time is longer, the performance is not as good as it shall be.

The stall speed, on the opposite, makes for better turns at low speed. It makes the gap between radius of turn of Bf 109 and spit wider than it should be.

Hey jf1981

You might want to hook up with klem and others who have been doing some testing.. In that what I have found over the years is most of the so called FM errors turn out to be pilot errors and or a misunderstanding of the test methods and or conditions. Not to mention all the little aspects of the simulated world that can have an effect on the results. For example something as little as the atmospheric conditions of the simulated world/map v.s. the standard atmosphere conditions that most if not all real world data is presented in. The following thread is a good example of which I speak..

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...t=33077&page=5

With that said, if you really want to get serious about testing the FM than you have to get serious about collecting test data during your test flights. Here is a link to the C# script file that klem and others are using as a baseline for collecting test data during test flights.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=27552

Note it saves the data to a standard csv file format that you can use EXCEL or OpenOffice (which is free) to graph and compare the data.

I highly recommend you use this script during your flight tests! Because if you don't, when you make a claim, for example such an such is approximately 30% off, there will always be doubt as to if this error was due to pilot error or an error in the FM. By collecting (logging) the test data during the test flight you will not only be able to remove the word 'approximately' from your statements but also reduce if not remove any doubt as that the error was due to pilot error.

[jf1981]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

[...]

I was as accurate as I could. Thanks for your links, we're really doing retro enginerring by now ....

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by jf1981

I was as accurate as I could.

Of which I had no doubt..

We all try to be perfect, but the fact of the mater is we are only human.

By collecting the test data during the test flight others will be able to review your test flight to see NOT only how accurate the FM is but how accurate your test method is.

Originally Posted by jf1981

Thanks for your links,

No problem if you have any questions, feel free to ask! But looking at FST's post he explains it step by step on how to use the C# script

Originally Posted by jf1981

we're really doing retro enginerring by now ....

Enh.. not really.

But the more standard we can make the testing of the FM the more useful the feedback we can provide to 1C