Don't make performances secret this time

[zapatista]

i dont think having published data from various contradictory sources is a problem, or that it justifies for oleg not to openly quote his BoB aircraft performance charts and the sources he used.

amongst the data sources available some will be more accurate, and based on direct performance testing in a controlled environment (like using captured aircraft, factory performance testing, contruction plans and blue prints etc), and some of these reference texts will stand out as being more comprehensive and reliable then others. in the 50 yrs since ww2 these historical aircraft performances have been analyzed, compared, and even new performance tests have been made with historical aircraft or reproductions built.

the same problem of, "what data can you trust", exists in every scientific discipline, and there is fairly simple ways to cut through the accumulated evidence in an objective way and source some "close to accurate" numbers, these SHOULD then be reproducible in a SIMULATOR on a computer if it claims an accurate flight model.

right now some of the aircraft behavior is down right silly, the numbers for the i-16 being a perfect example. the aim of having disclosure of flight performance characteristics in BoB, with a similar program like il2-compare, is to avoid those extreme "errors" (which in case of the i-16 were probably deliberate)

[Al Schlageter]

Didn't Oleg say he couldn't say where he got his data from, at least for the Soviet a/c > non discloser restraint.

[PE_Tihi]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

Didn't Oleg say he couldn't say where he got his data from, at least for the Soviet a/c > non discloser restraint.

Well, Oleg said too, that the Il Compare being inacurate and meant to help newbies only, only way to get the performance numbers is to fly the tests yourself. Meaning 1C hasn't got the performance numbers of the planes they released? Got them but won't tell us? Or that 1C signed non a disclosure restraint with themselves? ))))))))

Cube , in his threads 4-5 years ago already mentions the TsAGI book as the Oleg's bible.
The statement you quote is another mystification-you won't find 21 m/s as the climb rate for I16 anywhere- if you find a source claiming this , i ll pay you a dinner. And I ll pay you two if you find 24 m/s as it once has been in the game.

[Rama]

Originally Posted by zapatista

in the 50 yrs since ww2 these historical aircraft performances have been analyzed, compared, and even new performance tests have been made with historical aircraft or reproductions built.

Mmmm... I know many warbirds type from which you can't find a consensual flight test datas analyses...

the same problem of, "what data can you trust", exists in every scientific discipline, and there is fairly simple ways to cut through the accumulated evidence in an objective way and source some "close to accurate" numbers, these SHOULD then be reproducible .../...

... or better... correct the data so to fit the model, like in GW models for examples... then for sure, datas aren't a problem any more...

I totally disagree with you
The hardest part is to compare, analyse the data and to select the right set... or to create a trustable set from different ones.... there are no "simple ways". Data selection fuels among the hardest disputes between scientists.
Adjusting the model to fit the choosen data set is the easiest part... as John von Neumann said: "With four parameters I can fit an elephant and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk".