Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover > Technical threads > FM/DM threads

FM/DM threads Everything about FM/DM in CoD

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111  
Old 09-13-2012, 01:24 PM
Crumpp's Avatar
Crumpp Crumpp is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,552
Default

Quote:
the note on the left just means 'sea level',



It does just mean sea level.

You would have to understand that True Airspeed at Sea level equals EAS.....

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 09-13-2012, 01:35 PM
Al Schlageter Al Schlageter is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 657
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp View Post
So the entire left column showing altitude does not exist or is a typo or are you saying the turn performance is in EAS??

Maybe some experts will be along to tell us how wrong it is to use EAS??

LMAO!!!!!



Thanks Milo, you are so predictable in your zeal to prove me wrong!

I see your comprehension is as good as it ever was.

And you were wrong as Bungay didn't do the graphs. I don't have to prove you wrong as you do that very well all by yourself.

But do continue making a Olympus Mons out of a mole hill if it helps your ego.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 09-13-2012, 01:36 PM
bongodriver's Avatar
bongodriver bongodriver is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,546
Default

Quote:
It does just mean sea level.
I know...

Quote:
You would have to understand that True Airspeed at Sea level equals EAS.....
Why do you assume I don't know that? I am merely trying to clear up some confusion on what the figures on the left side of the graph mean...some people seemed confused by it's meaning....


Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp View Post
So the entire left column showing altitude does not exist or is a typo or are you saying the turn performance is in EAS??

Maybe some experts will be along to tell us how wrong it is to use EAS??

LMAO!!!!!



Thanks Milo, you are so predictable in your zeal to prove me wrong!


your zeal is eqally as predictable.
__________________


Intel Q9550 @3.3ghz(OC), Asus rampage extreme MOBO, Nvidia GTX470 1.2Gb Vram, 8Gb DDR3 Ram, Win 7 64bit ultimate edition
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 09-13-2012, 01:39 PM
Crumpp's Avatar
Crumpp Crumpp is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,552
Default

Quote:
It's not scientific.
It is scientific and all my calculations agree with the results. Unfortunately, radius of turn is not the best indicator of actual turn performance.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 09-13-2012, 01:48 PM
Crumpp's Avatar
Crumpp Crumpp is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,552
Default

Quote:
Why do you assume I don't know that?
Because your statement is contrary and wrong.

Quote:
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 09-13-2012, 01:54 PM
Crumpp's Avatar
Crumpp Crumpp is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,552
Default

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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 09-13-2012, 01:55 PM
bongodriver's Avatar
bongodriver bongodriver is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,546
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp View Post
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
__________________


Intel Q9550 @3.3ghz(OC), Asus rampage extreme MOBO, Nvidia GTX470 1.2Gb Vram, 8Gb DDR3 Ram, Win 7 64bit ultimate edition
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 09-13-2012, 02:32 PM
ACE-OF-ACES's Avatar
ACE-OF-ACES ACE-OF-ACES is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NM
Posts: 2,248
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp View Post
He is not an aircraft performance engineer or an aerodynamicist.
Actually the graphs were done by an engineer..

Which is something I pointed out in the first response to this graph where I took the time to read and than quoted the graph's source, i.e.

Quote:
Originally Posted by "The Most Dangerous Enemy" by Stephen Bungay
Turning circles are as calculated by John Ackroyd of the Manchester School of Engineering
Thus proving that humans (pilots, engineers, etc) can make mistakes..

As for the graph, as I initially noted, I questioned it's purpose..

Initially it seemed like it was done to give the impression that the 109 turn circles are far worse than the Spit and Hurri..

Which they well may be!

But, if that is the case this graph does not do a very good job of showing it!

It actually raises more questions and cast doubt for those who are use to looking at performance graphs (like myself)

If the purpose was to convey the turn radius (circle) at sea level than there is no need to provide an X (radius) vs. Y (alt) graph in that there is no X (radius) vs. Y (alt) taking place..

It is just X (radius) @ Y (alt)

IF that is the case, than placing 'Altitude (000ft) along the Y axis was wrong!

A better way to 'graph' this 'data' would have been to draw circles inside of circle with the radius associated with each circle and title the plot turn radius (circle) at sea level
__________________
Theres a reason for instrumenting a plane for test..
That being a pilots's 'perception' of what is going on can be very different from what is 'actually' going on.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 09-13-2012, 02:38 PM
bongodriver's Avatar
bongodriver bongodriver is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,546
Default

like this one...

__________________


Intel Q9550 @3.3ghz(OC), Asus rampage extreme MOBO, Nvidia GTX470 1.2Gb Vram, 8Gb DDR3 Ram, Win 7 64bit ultimate edition
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 09-13-2012, 02:42 PM
ACE-OF-ACES's Avatar
ACE-OF-ACES ACE-OF-ACES is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NM
Posts: 2,248
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bongodriver View Post
like this one...
Bingo!

Now looking at this graph..

We can see that the P51 and Spitfire both have a tighter turning circle (smaller radius) because their circles are inside the outer circle that

Also note, the outer circle (bigger radius) contains the the Bf109 along with the Tempest, Fw190, P47

The only info left off here is what is the speed and altitude?

Because these relationships can change with altitude

Also we can safely assume that this are the best turn circles at the best turn rates, but what is the rate?

Which is important, because what you really care about is the time it takes to do a say a 180 (reverse direction).
__________________
Theres a reason for instrumenting a plane for test..
That being a pilots's 'perception' of what is going on can be very different from what is 'actually' going on.

Last edited by ACE-OF-ACES; 09-13-2012 at 02:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.