radiators have no influence on speed

[SYN_Repent]

your saying i was wrong, about you saying you cant admit your wrong......show me where else i was wrong......

its a laugh, you spout a hundred lines to show how much more clever you are than people, how stupid they are, and how right you are, then when your caught out, and PROVED wrong.......you write one little line.

you really need to start and get right to the point (if there ever is one) in your posts, because the majority of your words are just worthless spam, you have added nothing to this thread except the graph you produced to prove david right (great move btw).



@ david, now lets get back to the original post, i did some testing in an E3, at 3000m with around 1.3ata and 2200 rpm, i was making about 420 kmh

with rads closed the speed went up to around 440kmh, that was rads fully closed for a short period of time.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by SYN_Repent

your saying i was wrong, about you saying you cant admit your wrong......show me where else i was wrong......

its a laugh, you spout a hundred lines to show how much more clever you are than people, how stupid they are, and how right you are, then when your caught out, and PROVED wrong.......you write one little line.

you really need to start and get right to the point (if there ever is one) in your posts, because the majority of your words are just worthless spam, you have added nothing to this thread except the graph you produced to prove david right (great move btw).



@ david, now lets get back to the original post, i did some testing in an E3, at 3000m with around 1.3ata and 2200 rpm, i was making about 420 kmh

with rads closed the speed went up to around 440kmh, that was rads fully closed for a short period of time.

I said it before and Ill say it again

How is it that I knew in advance that you would not be able to admit you were wrong?

easy, I know you and your type!

Thanks for proving me right about you not being able to admit you were wrong! Now we know who is man enough.. ie.. Not you!

[David198502]

Originally Posted by SYN_Repent

your saying i was wrong, about you saying you cant admit your wrong......show me where else i was wrong......

its a laugh, you spout a hundred lines to show how much more clever you are than people, how stupid they are, and how right you are, then when your caught out, and PROVED wrong.......you write one little line.

you really need to start and get right to the point (if there ever is one) in your posts, because the majority of your words are just worthless spam, you have added nothing to this thread except the graph you produced to prove david right (great move btw).



@ david, now lets get back to the original post, i did some testing in an E3, at 3000m with around 1.3ata and 2200 rpm, i was making about 420 kmh

with rads closed the speed went up to around 440kmh, that was rads fully closed for a short period of time.

thats interesting....i tested at an altitude of 500 meters and had the rads almost closed, level flight 440kph.then i opened them completely and the speed remained, not only for some seconds but for 5minutes, until i stopped my test.

well it seems that some report here changes with different rad settings, will have to try again at different altitudes...will report back my experiences.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by GOA_Potenz

Hey ACE the othe day i was driving my van on the motorway and i couldn't tell if i was a running at 50km/h or at 100km/h

Come on mate you are pulling in no sense argue, everybody can notice a 10/km/h difference, you have a bloody withe mark on the speed gauge to read your speed and the resolution on todays computers are mostly 1680 x 1050 or 1920 x 1080 or even higher, so resolution isn't a problem to read the gauges, also you have a lovely label that tells you the speed, but there's no way that anybody miss a 50km/h gap so please stop this argument, your graphic show that 50km/h gap from closed to open.

regs Potz

Already covered that mate.. here is a re-post of what I said earlier wrt 'real' life vs. 'sim' life

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

On that note, real test pilots in WWII had far more feedback than the typical four eyed over weight shut-ins who make baseless claims and provide no proof let alone any results of their testing other than the accuse the sim maker of a porked FM. For example, a real trained test pilot is not only able to read the altitude gauges, like a sim pilot, but he has the added benefit of being able to feel suttle g changes (seat of the pants) while flying, something a sim pilot can not do. That is just one of many types of feedback the sim pilot does not have, thus all the more reason to log your data while you fly on top of making a track file

Which covers the difference between 'real flying and 'sim' flying..

Which also apply to your example of 'real' car driving vs. 'sim' car driving..

With a little difference.. That being blue sky vs. ground clutter.. Which driving a car, be it real or sim, you have more 'reference' points along your path that give you a 'cue' to how fast you are going.