![]() |
|
IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
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 Last edited by PE_Tihi; 11-27-2008 at 12:27 AM. |
|
|