radiators have no influence on speed

[Hatch]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

Man I wish I could read german better!

Thanks for that info Hatch! By the way, does it say anything else? As in was this some sort of test radiator? As in an atempt to improve on the drag of the standard radiators?

No not really,

It was probably an informal test as it also states that they were using plain data.
It says "nicht umgerechnete messwerte" .
Which tranlated would be something like the "data was not thoroughly calculated".

They refer to another paper? with reference number VB 10918 L42
They also caution because of the non standard height at which the test was conducted.


Ah I saw Flanker35M's post too late

[Hatch]

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/techre...ng/f_flaps.htm

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Hatch

No not really,

It was probably an informal test as it also states that they were using plain data.
It says "nicht umgerechnete messwerte" .
Which tranlated would be something like the "data was not thoroughly calculated".

They refer to another paper? with reference number VB 10918 L42
They also caution because of the non standard height at which the test was conducted.


Ah I saw Flanker35M's post too late

Thanks for the info! S!

[GOA_Potenz]

ACE you will not give up??? it is starting to be a bit annoying

first you talked about resolution, now about real life, the car thing was just an irony mate
a 50km/h or even a 10km/h gap will be readable in the gauge in now days resolution standars

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by GOA_Potenz

ACE you will not give up??? it is starting to be a bit annoying

Facts have that affect on some people!

Originally Posted by GOA_Potenz

first you talked about resolution, now about real life, the car thing was just an irony mate a 50km/h or even a 10km/h gap will be readable in the gauge in now days resolution standars

Agreed.. 50 is much easier to 'see' than the 10 I was talking about at the time I thought we were talking about a +/-10

But now ask yourself..

Why is David and a few 'others' not able to 'see' a change in speed due to radiator settings, where as guys like Tom and SYN_Repent are able to 'see' a change in speed due to radiators settings?

Which group are we to belive?

I say belive, but I really should say which group are we going to have 'faith' in?

Because nothing has been provided by either group to support thier claims one way or another

Which brings us full circle

Where from the get go I have ask people to provide some proof, in the form of a track file for review, and better yet, to log the data (altitude, speed, etc) to a log file while flying

Than we would NOT have to base it on 'faith' or some sort of sick cheerleader prom night popularity contest

Is that too much to ask before someone accuses 1C of having a FM with a bug in it?

I think not

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Oh one thing I forgot to mention..

Before this 50kph value becomes some sort of fact I think it is important to point out that the data is from a 109G and we are talking about the in game 109E! And I am pretty sure the radiators changes a lot between the E and G model.

And don't forget what Hatch pointed out! That the data is from a non standard radiator test!

What does that means?

Well maybe it means a standard radiator only causes a 25kph (or less) difference, or maybe it means a standard radiator will cause a 75kph (or more) difference. We don't know.

But I think we can all agree that radiators will have 'some' affect on speed, how much we really don't know.

We can agree to disagree as to if someone can 'see' a speed difference of 50kph or less!

But here is what we know to be true

Some people do 'see' a speed difference and others do NOT 'see' a speed difference

How do we decide who is right?

I know how and it does not require a burger king campaign on picking between a werewolf or vampire!

[CaptainDoggles]

If I was a moderator on these boards I'd make a rule that any thread claiming facts about the flight model without presenting evidence gets locked.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

If I was a moderator on these boards I'd make a rule that any thread claiming facts about the flight model without presenting evidence gets locked.

Problem with that is the folks making the baseless claims would than make baseless claims that 1C is trying to hide something by locking thier posts!

All in all is it too much to ask to provide a track file for review when making a 'claim'? Is that too much to ask? I get it that some here may not know how to log the data to a file.. But come on how hard is it to recored a track file?