Quote:
|
Because there is a severe problem with the FM.
|
Where?
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:
If you are told best climb speed is 250km/h and you stick to that IAS throughout your test surely you have done it wrong? Same for spit, hurricane and flying pigs...
Today 09:57 AM
|
Exactly.
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.