PDA

View Full Version : Aircraft acceleration times, for those who are interested.:)



robban75
05-12-2004, 02:08 PM
Crimea map, 20m altitude. Going full power(with boost) at 250km/h, allowing engine to spool up. Starting timer at 300km/h.

Enjoy! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

La-7

300 - start timer
350 - 4
400 - 10
450 - 18
500 - 28
550 - 43
600 - 1:31

D-9 ´45

300 - start timer
350 - 5
400 - 12.5
450 - 21
500 - 34
550 - 55
600 - 1:56

Ta 152H(50% fuel)

300 - start timer
350 - 5
400 - 13
450 - 23
500 - 41
550 - 1:23
560 - 1:43
565 - 2:11

P-51D(50% fuel)

300 - start timer
350 - 7
400 - 15
450 - 24
500 - 40
550 - 1:06

A-4

300 - start timer
350 - 7.5
400 - 16
450 - 30
500 - 53
550 - unreachable

A-9

300 - start timer
350 - 6
400 - 13
450 - 24
500 - 37.5
550 - 1:02
570 - 1:19
580 - 1:33
590 - 1:57

Yak-3

300 - start timer
350 - 5
400 - 11
450 - 22
500 - 36
550 - 1:06
560 - 1:20
570 - 1:47

K-4

300 - ST
350 - 4
400 - 10
450 - 17
500 - 27
550 - 46
560 - 53
570 - 1:01
580 - 1:15
590 - 1:44

Ki-84

300 - ST
350 - 5
400 - 12
450 - 21
500 - 33
550 - 56
560 - 1:03
570 - 1:14
580 - 1:34
590 - 3:00

Spit 1941

300 - ST
350 - 8
400 - 20
410 - 25
420 - 29
430 - 34
440 - 42
450 - 51

Spit LF 1942

300 - ST
350 - 6
400 - 13
450 - 26
500 - 51
510 - 1:01
520 - 1:22

And final, the La-7 and Fw 190D-9 with 25% fuel

La-7

300 - ST
350 - 4
400 - 9
450 - 16
500 - 25
550 - 40
600 - 1:19
605 - 1:30
610 - 1:49
612 - 2:04

D-9

300 - ST
350 - 5
400 - 11
450 - 20
500 - 31
550 - 49
600 - 1:36
605 - 1:55
610 - 2:14
612 - 2:34

If you like, I can test other planes aswell. Just let me know which ones!

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

robban75
05-12-2004, 02:08 PM
Crimea map, 20m altitude. Going full power(with boost) at 250km/h, allowing engine to spool up. Starting timer at 300km/h.

Enjoy! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

La-7

300 - start timer
350 - 4
400 - 10
450 - 18
500 - 28
550 - 43
600 - 1:31

D-9 ´45

300 - start timer
350 - 5
400 - 12.5
450 - 21
500 - 34
550 - 55
600 - 1:56

Ta 152H(50% fuel)

300 - start timer
350 - 5
400 - 13
450 - 23
500 - 41
550 - 1:23
560 - 1:43
565 - 2:11

P-51D(50% fuel)

300 - start timer
350 - 7
400 - 15
450 - 24
500 - 40
550 - 1:06

A-4

300 - start timer
350 - 7.5
400 - 16
450 - 30
500 - 53
550 - unreachable

A-9

300 - start timer
350 - 6
400 - 13
450 - 24
500 - 37.5
550 - 1:02
570 - 1:19
580 - 1:33
590 - 1:57

Yak-3

300 - start timer
350 - 5
400 - 11
450 - 22
500 - 36
550 - 1:06
560 - 1:20
570 - 1:47

K-4

300 - ST
350 - 4
400 - 10
450 - 17
500 - 27
550 - 46
560 - 53
570 - 1:01
580 - 1:15
590 - 1:44

Ki-84

300 - ST
350 - 5
400 - 12
450 - 21
500 - 33
550 - 56
560 - 1:03
570 - 1:14
580 - 1:34
590 - 3:00

Spit 1941

300 - ST
350 - 8
400 - 20
410 - 25
420 - 29
430 - 34
440 - 42
450 - 51

Spit LF 1942

300 - ST
350 - 6
400 - 13
450 - 26
500 - 51
510 - 1:01
520 - 1:22

And final, the La-7 and Fw 190D-9 with 25% fuel

La-7

300 - ST
350 - 4
400 - 9
450 - 16
500 - 25
550 - 40
600 - 1:19
605 - 1:30
610 - 1:49
612 - 2:04

D-9

300 - ST
350 - 5
400 - 11
450 - 20
500 - 31
550 - 49
600 - 1:36
605 - 1:55
610 - 2:14
612 - 2:34

If you like, I can test other planes aswell. Just let me know which ones!

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

LEXX_Luthor
05-12-2004, 02:19 PM
Thanks robban. Was that 50% fuel on all tests?

Overheat on or off? That may isolate Overheat issue from FM/power issues, for example if you overheat and lose engine before reaching max speed.

faustnik
05-12-2004, 02:22 PM
Great work Robban! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Our 190s need a push!

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

robban75
05-12-2004, 02:42 PM
Thanks Faust! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

@LEXX, I used 50% for the Mustang And Ta 152, and I did a test with the La-7 and D-9 with 25% aswell as 100% fuel. All the other planes with 100%! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

BBB_Hyperion
05-12-2004, 03:27 PM
Any idea how we can estimate the real acceleration Data for this Planes.

Regards,
Hyperion

Kurfurst__
05-12-2004, 03:41 PM
EXCELLENT work, Robban! That La-7 and K-4 is really hotrods, as one would expect.

Also nice to see how considerably is the effect of reduced weight and increased power to weight ratio!

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

clint-ruin
05-12-2004, 03:45 PM
Would be very interested in how radiator settings [auto/closed/open] change the times too, particularly towards the later speeds.

edit: and of course, thanks for doing the tests!

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

WWMaxGunz
05-12-2004, 05:57 PM
Hi Robban, how about acceleration in different dive angles since this is an issue and the data is needed to illustrate a head's up for 1C?

Not all planes are needed but certainly ones representing light versus heavy and the ends of the power ranges. We also need all settings of power and pitch plus changes. Entry speed of 400 kph which is good combat speed would be helpful for those planes that ran in that range.

This would be great and with your record of consistancy and care we should get good values to present. I can take zips of tracks if you want and pull the data off in playback or you can send it all in. Please PM if you would like my email address.


Neal

p1ngu666
05-12-2004, 08:57 PM
not sure if we need pitch http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
anything but 100% is slower, maybe for 109/190s tho

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
<123_GWood_JG123> NO SPAM!

WWMaxGunz
05-12-2004, 09:23 PM
Funny but I run a P-51 at 95% power to stay cool and high cruise at 3km alt and I change pitch from 100% to 95% and get some extra power. The nose comes up a bit, I trim down and I've gained speed. I change down to 90% and gain some more. But after that I get no more gain.


Neal

Diablo310th
05-13-2004, 06:45 AM
good work robban....how about info on the P-38's and the P-47's?

http://img54.photobucket.com/albums/v166/310thDiablo/Diablos20Sig.jpg

robban75
05-13-2004, 11:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Hi Robban, how about acceleration in different dive angles since this is an issue and the data is needed to illustrate a head's up for 1C?

Not all planes are needed but certainly ones representing light versus heavy and the ends of the power ranges. We also need all settings of power and pitch plus changes. Entry speed of 400 kph which is good combat speed would be helpful for those planes that ran in that range.

This would be great and with your record of consistancy and care we should get good values to present. I can take zips of tracks if you want and pull the data off in playback or you can send it all in. Please PM if you would like my email address.



Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the kind words!

I have just conducted a series of dive acceleration tests, with engine on idle, from 300km/h to 850km/h(TAS). Starting altitude was 4500m. Dive angle, 45 degrees approximately. I pushed the stick forward at 300km/h and started the timer at the same time.

Although these tests are quite simple, the results do speak for themselves. My ability in reading the timer may be the cause of the time difference in between the airframes and not the FM of the airplane itself.

Let me know what you think! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif If you like I can send the tracks to your e-mail.

Here's the dive times!

Fw 190D-9

300 - ST
350 - 5
400 - 8
450 - 10
500 - 12
550 - 15
600 - 18
650 - 20
700 - 24
750 - 27
800 - 30
850 - 34

La-7

300 - ST
350 - 5
400 - 8
450 - 10
500 - 13
550 - 16
600 - 18
650 - 21
700 - 25
750 - 29
800 - 34
850 - Aircraft broke up.

P-47

300 - ST
350 - 5
400 - 8
450 - 10
500 - 13
550 - 15
600 - 18
650 - 21
700 - 25
750 - 28
800 - 32
850 - 36

Yak-3

300 - ST
350 - 5
400 - 8
450 - 10
500 - 13
550 - 16
600 - 19
650 - 22
700 - 25
750 - 29
800 - 34
850 - 39

The VVS birds starts to slow down in their acceleration due to vibrations around 700+km/h. Although as you kan see, it doesn't slow them down much.

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

faustnik
05-13-2004, 12:31 PM
Wow, not much difference in there. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

LeadSpitter_
05-13-2004, 03:37 PM
thx for backing up what I been saying for so long, Can you show a quick test of the energy bleed by loss of speed when leveling out with nothing but trim after a dive with your egg timer http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/newsig.jpg

LW_Icarus
05-13-2004, 03:43 PM
cool stats, nice job on the tests.

increased prop pitch is not always slower, as was stated earlier. I too have experienced small speed gains by increasing pitch.

wouldn't a plane dyno be cool? I mean a piece of software that could "measure" all the properties of a plane when run through its paces, maybe provide telemetry from a flight or dyno pull. not historic really but would be neat. we'll have plenty of new planes to play with soon enough.

is there an "aircraft viewer" available, like for NR2003? or would it be possible to add a few plane models to it? the car viewer for NR2003 is quick, and easy, and allows for custom backgrounds to be applied

lrrp22
05-13-2004, 04:17 PM
Pretty much renders historical energy tactics irrelevant... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

WWMaxGunz
05-13-2004, 04:58 PM
Robban, what prop pitch did you use?

I was looking more for 50% power, 50% pitch and should have said... or more power and same or less pitch. A high pitch value would make the props and engines act as brakes.

The conditions of the dive, like power and pitch and start speed all matter very much. I'll PM you for the tracks. These things need to be seen as they are. And I hope they are trk files, not ntrks!


Neal

Hunde_3.JG51
05-13-2004, 07:31 PM
Thanks for supporting what I have been saying all along also. Me and squad leader did some more dive stuff the other night and there was virtually no difference at all most of the time. We did an La-7 vs. FW-190A-9 test and the planes were actually so close that they didn't move 1 meter away from eachother, it looked silly as they both hung there together seemingly not even moving in a steep dive. This was done up until La-7 broke apart. Heavier plane with 2,400hp couldn't pull 1 meter on a lighter, less powerful plane, it seems the heavier, more powerful planes are penalized for weight but gain no advantage.

Robban, maybe you could send this to Oleg so maybe some day we can have dive and zoom modelled correctly.

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

kalo456
05-13-2004, 08:26 PM
Thanx for those excellent reports!

Kalo

WWMaxGunz
05-13-2004, 09:18 PM
Top level speed of the La-7 is less than FW-190-A9? La-7 has less drag for sure. I still think that more weight =by far= should make some real difference.

One thing. Are you guys running 100% prop pitch in dives even?


Neal

Hunde_3.JG51
05-13-2004, 10:06 PM
I was running 85 or 100% (85 I believe) prop-pitch, definitely not auto.

Are you asking if the La-7 has a higher level speed or are you suggesting that I implied that? In the latter case, I didn't. FW-190A-9 is about 10+km/h slower than La-7 at SL, A-9 should be about 15+ km/h faster at 5,500m (though I'm not sure it is if the La-5 '42 is any indication, it is 20+km/h too fast at 5,500m). We didn't do a speed test we did a dive test starting at the same speed from about 4,000m.

I fully expect a gaggle of people to try and come here and defend the fact that there really is no dive & zoom modelled, but they probably haven't tried things in-game and will base their posts on theories or charts. This isn't addressed to anyone in particular, but it will likely happen.

Yak-3 diving with P-47 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

LEXX_Luthor
05-13-2004, 10:31 PM
No hassle cos you guys/guyettes are finally doing your homework by testing



__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

bakubaku
05-14-2004, 12:10 AM
If the test is true, FB's FM has some fundamental flaws. Hopefully we can get this
fix before BoB.
Can anyone close to Oleg point him to look into this thread? Or should we mail me? I mailed him couple of times but get no reply so I am not going to do it again.

Lazy312
05-14-2004, 12:52 AM
"Yak-3 diving with P-47 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif"

Do you have data for Yak's acceleration in a dive? Or at least some pilots' quotes comparing these two aircraft?

BTW during a performance trial Yak-9U was able to easily outdive P-63..

wooden planes, iron men

WWMaxGunz
05-14-2004, 01:51 AM
Hunde, just wondering what you expect. The La is lighter, yes, less power, yes. Yet it is faster a SL which indicates a LOT less drag probably due to smaller but still less.

ADFU comparison report with not all conditions given but in a dive between P-47 and FW from 10,000 ft to 3,000 ft starting at 250 mph (400 kph) the P-47 didn't catch the FW till the bottom of the dive. The report states that the P-47 was going much faster but still a whole 7,000 ft went by before catching up.

So I read people expecting that in a P-47 all they have to do is put the nose down and they're gone even from any FW -- and I know well that unless they have a lead in time that they will have a handful or more of seconds that they'd better be rolling the barrel or come up whining.

It's as much about expectations as FM problems but of course there seems to be an all-or-nothing mentality with some folks.

Starting at 400kph and diving from 10,000 feet to 3,000, we get to or very near top speeds. Once one plane hits top speed and the other is still gaining speed then the race is won, it's a matter of time and distance only. But then, that is what or very close to what the ADFU test shows. So how big a problem are we talking about anyway? Big enough to be turned into a mountain if you get close enough, like a rock can become a boulder.

We generate some tracks and data then send it in with a well worded and polite note. Or we can all yell like no tomorrow and maybe someone decides to do nothing and not tell us why. Which you want? We have some who cry because it makes them feel good, they cry over anything and refuse to reason over things like degree.


Neal

WWMaxGunz
05-14-2004, 01:57 AM
Robban, please check you private space....
And Aaron, and Clint.


Neal

clint-ruin
05-14-2004, 03:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
No hassle cos you guys/guyettes are finally doing your homework by testing
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly!

Next step: do any RL tests say just how much the difference should be in distance/speed vs time or just "better" "worse" etc?

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Diablo310th
05-14-2004, 04:21 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
thx for backing up what I been saying for so long, Can you show a quick test of the energy bleed by loss of speed when leveling out with nothing but trim after a dive with your egg timer http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
___________________________________________

I agree LS...no wonder I could never outrun anything in a dive in my Jug. I always thought all teh planes dived at teh same speed. No wonder i could never get any distance on an enemy ac.

http://img54.photobucket.com/albums/v166/310thDiablo/Diablos20Sig.jpg

NN_EnigmuS
05-14-2004, 06:36 AM
all plane dive the same in Aep lol some problem here for Fw190 and P47 pilots(in heavy fighters indeed)hehe

and yeah the Fw190 need a better acceleration and Ta152 too
can you try with Ta152H not seen it in your test?

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

NN_EnigmuS
05-14-2004, 06:38 AM
sorry just seen the Ta152h test http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/1072.gif

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

AB_Onedoc
05-14-2004, 07:11 AM
As if we needed it, this is more proof that the advantages of dive and zoom that the Jug pilots enjoyed and employed against their lighter, more agile but less powered opponents cannot be used in this game. It seems their weight is used as the reason they can't climb but it should enable their zoom and their dive but doesn't.
I have given up on this being fixed as it is a result of the code and I don't think it is fixable without a whole new game.
WYS
AB_Onedoc

NN_EnigmuS
05-14-2004, 07:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AB_Onedoc:
I have given up on this being fixed as it is a result of the code and I don't think it is fixable without a whole new game.
WYS
AB_Onedoc<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol don't think so,why in FB the dive were correct and cannot be in AEP,i remenber in Fb that heavy plane take faster speed in dive than light fighters(for Fw190 i remenber that, and it was very easy at those time to escape a russian fighters in dive with fW).

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

WWMaxGunz
05-14-2004, 09:01 AM
So far the problem has only been reported in very steep dives over 45 degrees. In shallower dives there is a difference.

And it's not ALL the planes. And it's not for ALL dive distances.

This is what I mean about all-or-nothing thinking. It's unreasonable but at least it feeds the paranoia that explains how so many natural born super aces are not doing as good as they think they should. I.E. it makes a nice EXCUSE so stretch it for all it's worth! Don't try and find out the limits or consider the reality, that would just spoil the whine. Booo-hoooo!

clint-ruin
05-14-2004, 09:18 AM
It would be good if Aaron could post some more of his tests which seemed to show a very large difference between the planes tested.

For the time being I think it's best just to go with data and leave whine/boo hoo remarks out. There is obviously something different in the methodology of Robbans and Aarons tests if they are showing up such different results.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

AB_Onedoc
05-14-2004, 09:32 AM
WWMaxGunz wrote
"So far the problem has only been reported in very steep dives over 45 degrees. In shallower dives there is a difference.

And it's not ALL the planes. And it's not for ALL dive distances.

This is what I mean about all-or-nothing thinking. It's unreasonable but at least it feeds the paranoia that explains how so many natural born super aces are not doing as good as they think they should. I.E. it makes a nice EXCUSE so stretch it for all it's worth! Don't try and find out the limits or consider the reality, that would just spoil the whine. Booo-hoooo! "

I don't see any whining here, just a discussion of a couple of things we would like to see fixed in the game. You are trying to make personal attacks that are not warranted and therefore show yourself for what you are. And to correct you, this problem is showing up at all angles and distance. The problem is the weight and horsepower (thrust) and the drag of the plane is not affecting the dive and zoom in the manner it should, only in the climb rate. I do not claim to be a super ace or anything like that. I have not seen anyone claim that. Go troll somewhere else.

ajafoofoo
05-14-2004, 10:06 AM
Wait for BOB.

You won't see a FM accurate enough to match all the things you'd expect in FB.

You adjust for dive and zoom and some other aspect of this sim will just get knocked out of wack.

LEXX_Luthor
05-14-2004, 10:36 AM
The mission file below can ensure exact desired dive angle is set up and maintained. Note that in FMB when you start mission in flight you are pointed in the direction of the next waypoint. The waypoints in this example are set for 45 degree dive.

First waypoint is 5km at 200km/hr
Second waypoint is 0km at 200km/hr

Second waypoint is 5km to the East of First waypoint--45 degrees drop from first waypoint.

Any combination of first waypoint starting altitude and second waypoint distance will give any desired dive angle (second waypoint is always Zero altitude). A Static Tirpitz battleship is placed exactly at the same place as second aircraft waypoint. You will see the Tirpitz visible in your gunsight at least given the distance provided by the waypoint example here. Just keep pointed at the Tirpitz and you will keep dive angle. Don't be sloppy.

The aircraft X-Y waypoints and altitudes below are in meters not kilometers.

[MAIN]
MAP Crimea/load.ini
TIME 12.0
CloudType 0
CloudHeight 1500.0
player g0113
army 2
playerNum 0
[Wing]
g0113
[g0113]
Planes 1
Skill 1
numberOn0 0
Class air.IAR_81A
Fuel 50
weapons default
[g0113_Way]
NORMFLY 100000.00 100000.00 5000.00 200.00
NORMFLY 105000.00 100000.00 0.00 200.00
[NStationary]
0_Static ships.Ship$Tirpitz 2 105000.00 100000.0 360.00 0.0
[Buildings]
[Bridge]
[House]



---&gt; Make sure the Tirpitz is "friendly" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

k5054
05-14-2004, 11:29 AM
Robban, I've been doing something with calculated dive accelerations as mentioned in the P-51 performance thread, but as that thread is getting tied up with LW fantasy planes and 150 octane I thought I'd drag it over here. Anyhow, could you retest with full throttle? I can't estimate the drag/thrust of an idle engine. my computer model also won't work at too high a pseed as the estimated factors start to play too big a part in the result.
The model will, within limits, give a Ps fugure for any known fighter (which has a well-documented speed/power/alt combination), so giving the instantaneous acceleration or climb (or ht loss) capabilty for any speed/g/alt.
The results so far are that at moderate speeds and steep angles dive acceleration doesn't vary much between different aircraft in our plane set.
Example, P-47D in 45 deg dive at 300mph at 13500lbs wt, sea level., drag is 1657 lbs, thrust is 2300 lbs, net thrust 643 lbs, component of weight acting on thrust line sin45*13500 = 9546 lbs
Total thrust 10188 lbs, acting on mass of 13500 lbs = 0.75G

For a A6M5, same conditions, wt 6025lbs acceleration is 0.684G.
That's a difference of only 2ft/sec/sec or in metric 2.2 km/h per second even though the Zeke is above his s/l max at the start. It's gonna take a while for a worthwhile speed difference to appear (well, not diving at s/l it won't, unless we're in death valley), because the dominant effect is .7071 of the weight acting on the mass. The P-47 does a little better because it's faster, the zeke a little worse because drag exceeds thrust in this state.

Anybody want to do some testing?

Hunde_3.JG51
05-14-2004, 12:09 PM
Lazy, Romm said he could leave Yak-3 standing in FW-190D. And accounts in JG26 and others make it apparent that the P-47 should even out-dive the Dora. Also, Yak-9U was heavier and more powerful than Yak-3.

Maxgunz, you are the one making the mountain http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. And I do send tracks to Oleg rather than trying to appease the "self-appointed keepers of the board." So you are wasting your breath. I don't know where you and some others get off thinking that we have to prove anything to you. I make a post about a test we did and you start posting about whining and crybabies, and about big expectations and not wanting to consider the degree. WTF are you talking about? Where did I have big expectations? Where did I fail to consider the degree? Do you hear voices in your head, or do you just enjoy arguing (which you apparently do judging by most of your posts) by trying to attach aspects to people's posts that simply are not there?

What I do expect is that all planes shouldn't dive the same. Don't assume I/we have only tested FW-190A-9 and La-7. I am not an expert so I don't know the exact values or degree to which this should happen, but I know they shouldn't all be the same in Robban's test and what I see in-game seems contradictory to what I read from pilot accounts. And I'm not one of those who expects you to point the nose down and be gone, I'm saying there should be a difference. It seems like you are the one guilty of "all or nothing" thinking. I just want this issue to be looked at, nothing more, nothing less. I am just bringing up a possible problem, I'll let Oleg & crew handle it.

And there are plenty of people around here who will tell you that I don't need any excuses when flying http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.


http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

[This message was edited by Hunde_3.JG51 on Fri May 14 2004 at 11:35 AM.]

WWMaxGunz
05-14-2004, 07:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
Example, P-47D in 45 deg dive at 300mph at 13500lbs wt, sea level., drag is 1657 lbs, thrust is 2300 lbs, net thrust 643 lbs, component of weight acting on thrust line sin45*13500 = 9546 lbs
Total thrust 10188 lbs, acting on mass of 13500 lbs = 0.75G

Neal: And here you are showing that weight (mass x gravity) far outshadows thrust and drag at 300mph even at a 45 degree dive let alone vertical. Since no matter what the weight is, acceleration due to gravity is the same, the most by far powerful force acting is the same.

For a A6M5, same conditions, wt 6025lbs acceleration is 0.684G.
That's a difference of only 2ft/sec/sec or in metric 2.2 km/h per second even though the Zeke is above his s/l max at the start. It's gonna take a while for a worthwhile speed difference to appear (well, not diving at s/l it won't, unless we're in death valley), because the dominant effect is .7071 of the weight acting on the mass. The P-47 does a little better because it's faster, the zeke a little worse because drag exceeds thrust in this state.

Neal: The places where mass of the plane makes the difference are at the start and well into the dive. At low speed a low thrust to weight plane accelerates slower becuase the T/W addition is less and once speeds really get high the drag will approach and match even that of weight.

Anybody want to do some testing?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It occurs to me that you can maybe calculate the thrust and drag values at full level speeds for different planes and compare those to mass x gravity at sin(dive angle)?


Neal

WWMaxGunz
05-14-2004, 08:01 PM
WTF am I talking about?

How about thread after thread with the new truisms:

1) "All planes dive the same!"

and

2) "We can't use energy tactics."

Perhaps you would care to answer how if #1 is true that in shallower dives that all planes do not dive the same?

For #2, do all energy tactics depend on vertical dives? Do most?

Please, I have raised a point that doesn't get addressed. I keep reading about P-47's just point the nose down and escape. I keep reading how if this is not true in the sim then the sim is wrong. I keep reading that online it is not true, the P-47 is not leaving the (FW, Yak, Whatever) behind. Yet I read the ADFU comparison and the P-47 there does not even CATCH UP to the FW until they have both dived 7,000 feet. At which point the P-47 is stated to have been going much faster but how much is much? SO; if you are in the sim in your P-47 and a FW dives steeply and it takes you 7,000 feet just to catch up then are you going to believe that the sim is wrong? I can assure you that MANY people on this board and the GD will do just that and call it proof that the FM is wrong despite that that is what happened in a real world event and despite anyone pointing it out.

Call it what you want. To say that the matter is a proven FM problem is premature. To raise a stink about "All Dives Are The Same" and "Energy Tactics Don't Work" that gets echoed around as truth in typical Big Lie, tell it enough it becomes true fashion is making a mountain out of feces.

Present what you have to Oleg and if he says "You Is Wrong" then what will the posts say? I can easily guess that his word will not be taken and rudeness will erupt. Maybe not from you but it will form people who are not willing to listen to anything quick, easy and meeting their conceptions.

I'm not deciding the FM is right or wrong, black or white. It has to be grey because it cannot be perfect. I'd just like a lighter shade of grey where possible. I see some people want beyond white when I work with the values.

I am cationing strongly a more careful and mature approach to communicating with Oleg if only for the reason that I hope channels of communication can be more open instead of mostly closed which we get depending on noise level.


Neal

SSJG52experten
05-14-2004, 08:26 PM
thanks roban75

could you also find out the best climb time for the following aircraft at maximum flight performance (allowing the aircraft to cool down when the engine overheats)with 100%fuel starting at 1km and 5km: me bf109k-4, la-7, yak-3, ki-84lc

thanks again

AB_Onedoc
05-14-2004, 09:15 PM
I don't see anybody whining or saying everything is black or white. Max, read the freaking post then come back and make a comment and yes, we hope some of these things are addressed in the patch but don't expect it. And, Oleg has made some pretty disparaging remarks about the jug so his thoughts on the plane don't hold much water with the fans of it. ENOUGH!!

Never argue with someone over the internet. It's like being in the special olympics. No matter who wins you're still all ******ed.

WYS
AB_Onedoc

faustnik
05-14-2004, 10:13 PM
Guys, drop the argueing please. This was a good thread. Don't cover up Robban's work with BS. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

Hunde_3.JG51
05-15-2004, 12:36 AM
Maxgunz, again WTF are you talking about? Where did I say we can't use energy tactics at all? Again, putting words in my mouth. And about the P-47 and FW, why are you telling me? I didn't comment or ask about this and you are repeating it again.

And I never said anything was definitely proven, I made my laughing comment in answer to Robbans test where the Yak-3 could dive with P-47. More "all or nothing thinking" from you.

Again, show me where I said all energy tactics won't work? Anything for an argument I guess.

Unfortunatley I do agree about the reaction Oleg would likely get if he responded to this thread. But I would not be among those who would be rude and ungrateful.

And I do agree that FM aspects are not black and white, there is more to the picture that needs to be observed. All I want is to draw attention to a possible problem and let the professionals handle it. Having said that, in-game testing has shown some real oddities.

Why are you telling me about a more mature approach to communicating with Oleg? My messages along with the tracks I send to him are filled with well-wishing and gratitude. I have posted kind words about FB as much as anybody and I am extremely grateful for what we have. So again, I really don't understand what you are talking about.

Sorry Faustnik, I won't say anymore on the issue. I've wasted too much time on this already http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif.

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

robban75
05-15-2004, 02:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
Robban, I've been doing something with calculated dive accelerations as mentioned in the P-51 performance thread, but as that thread is getting tied up with LW fantasy planes and 150 octane I thought I'd drag it over here. Anyhow, could you retest with full throttle? I can't estimate the drag/thrust of an idle engine.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll get right on it on monday as I'm away over the weekend. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Internet I have, but FB, nope. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
And just so that I understand you correctly, times for a max(110%) power dive is what you need right?

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

robban75
05-15-2004, 03:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SSJG52experten:
thanks roban75

could you also find out the best climb time for the following aircraft at maximum flight performance (allowing the aircraft to cool down when the engine overheats)with 100%fuel starting at 1km and 5km: me bf109k-4, la-7, yak-3, ki-84lc

thanks again<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi there! Below are some links to my climbcharts. All are done with full power. For most of the planes the overheat warning comes after a minute and a half, but I have just kept on going to 5000m anyways. All planes can make it to 5000m without destroying the engine btw. Is this what you are looking for?

http://members.chello.se/unni/ClimbchartD-9%20real+FB.JPG

http://members.chello.se/unni/ClimbchartJapan.JPG

http://members.chello.se/unni/ClimbchartVVS.JPG

http://members.chello.se/unni/StigkartaLW-2.JPG

http://members.chello.se/unni/StigkartaUS-2.JPG

http://members.chello.se/unni/StigkartaVVS-2.JPG

http://members.chello.se/unni/Stigkarta%20AEP.JPG

http://members.chello.se/unni/Stigkarta%20AEP-2.JPG

http://members.chello.se/unni/Stigkarta%20Ta%20152.JPG

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

hos8367
05-15-2004, 04:15 AM
I dont see why you guys think heavier planes should dive faster then light planes. The laws of physics state that all things being equal objects of different weight fall at the same speed. Factors which would make one plane dive faster then another are aerodynamics, power, effeciency of converting power to energy. I'm not saying people are wrong in saying certain planes should outdive one another, but its not becuase of weight. However, weight would be a factor in the zoom after a dive.

Anca1ag0n
05-15-2004, 06:05 AM
hos 8367:

"I dont see why you guys think heavier planes should dive faster then light planes. The laws of physics state that all things being equal objects of different weight fall at the same speed. Factors which would make one plane dive faster then another are aerodynamics, power, effeciency of converting power to energy. I'm not saying people are wrong in saying certain planes should outdive one another, but its not becuase of weight. However, weight would be a factor in the zoom after a dive."

Suppose there were two planes A and B, identical in every respect except B is heavier, diving at the same angle, same speed, but with engines idling.

A and B will experience equal drag forces, but the downward force on B due to gravity will be greater than on A.

Conclusion: Other things being equal, a heavier plane can dive faster.

OK, let's make it ever so slightly more realistic now, and suppose that B is precisely a 'scaled up' version of A - identical shape, but larger in size.

B's mass (and hence weight) is proportional to the cube of the scale factor, whereas cross-sectional area (and hence drag, approximately) is proportional to the square. Therefore, with B and A both diving at equal speed, angle and zero power, as before, then B still dives a bit faster than A.

OK, now let's think about A and B doing powered dives. A larger plane will generally have a more powerful engine, but let's suppose B's power-to-weight ratio is less than A's. The power developed by the engine is more-or-less independent of airspeed, whereas drag is proportional to speed squared.
Therefore, at lower speeds, A's greater power-to-weight will dominate, and A will dive faster. However, before too long, B's smaller drag-to-weight ratio will more than compensate - B will soon catch and overtake A. (If A and B have equal maximum level speeds v, then B's acceleration (in a dive) will exceed A's precisely when the speed is greater than v.)

Of course, if B is both heavier and has equal or greater power-to-weight, then it'll have better dive acceleration at any speed.

[This message was edited by Anca1ag0n on Sat May 15 2004 at 05:21 AM.]

k5054
05-15-2004, 08:04 AM
"
OK, now let's think about A and B doing powered dives. A larger plane will generally have a more powerful engine, but let's suppose B's power-to-weight ratio is less than A's. The power developed by the engine is more-or-less independent of airspeed, whereas drag is proportional to speed squared.
Therefore, at lower speeds, A's greater power-to-weight will dominate, and A will dive faster. However, before too long, B's smaller drag-to-weight ratio will more than compensate - B will soon catch and overtake A. (If A and B have equal maximum level speeds v, then B's acceleration (in a dive) will exceed A's precisely when the speed is greater than v.)"

***************

You are right to think the POWER is not dependent on airspeed, but the thrust is what opposes drag, and it is not independent of airspeed at all. In fact power = speed x thrust, so as the speed increases for constant power the thrust goes down. In my calcs I also include exhaust thrust where applicable and it doesn't vary with speed, and that's why jets took over from props, children, they develop constant thrust, not constant power.

Diablo310th
05-15-2004, 08:54 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by faustnik:
Guys, drop the argueing please. This was a good thread. Don't cover up Robban's work with BS. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif
____________________________________________

I agree faustnik......lets keep the testing going and see waht comes up. In Thunderbolt R. johnson stated that teh FW could out excellerate teh Jug...but liek was said after 7000ft approx. 3500m the Jug caught and passed a FW. What I do think is off in teh modelling is that point at which a certain plane reaches compressability....I don't think it's teh speed but more that. In FB it did seem better modeled than ACES. Perhaps that is where we need to test. That and teh zoom climb for certain planes. I love my Jug..anyone knows me or flies with me knows that I am alwasy in it. I'm finally learning how to fly it. But I do think that it bleeds energy too fast. Maybe that will be corrected in teh patch. in 2 weeks of course. LOL

http://img54.photobucket.com/albums/v166/310thDiablo/Diablos20Sig.jpg

k5054
05-15-2004, 10:04 AM
We have four things going here which we need to reconcile in some way;

What happens in AEP, which we can test in a limited way.
What we can calculate, also limited in the high speed range.
What the anecdotal evidence tells us.
What real-life tests tell us.

I'd like to see full throttle tests in AEP (yes, 110%) maybe with speed snapshots after 1 sec, 5 sec, 10 sec with dive entry above the reference altitude to avoid the dive entry interfering with the figures. We also don't have a feel for the g in the dive, a g-meter would help a lot here. A zero-g dive, what they call unloading nowadays, would produce the best acceleration, if the engine can handle it.

My calculations don't produce the kind of results that would lead to a worthwhile change in range in a short time, ie you can't dive out of trouble unless you start with the other guy at long range. Anecdotal evidence doesn't seem to support this, flight tests don't make the conditions all that clear. For a long dive weight against drag seems to be the main thing, power becomes less important as thrust goes to nothing when the prop loses bite. Maybe the flat plate area of each aircraft is what we should be looking at, divided into the weight.
Anybody know the definition of ballistic coefficient?

hos8367
05-15-2004, 11:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Anca1ag0n:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hos8367:
I dont see why you guys think heavier planes should dive faster then light planes. The laws of physics state that all things being equal objects of different weight fall at the same speed. Factors which would make one plane dive faster then another are aerodynamics, power, effeciency of converting power to energy. I'm not saying people are wrong in saying certain planes should outdive one another, but its not becuase of weight. However, weight would be a factor in the zoom after a dive.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Suppose there were two planes A and B, identical in every respect except B is heavier, diving at the same angle, same speed, but with engines idling.

A and B will experience equal drag forces, but the downward force on B due to gravity will be greater than on A.

Conclusion: Other things being equal, a heavier plane can dive faster.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Conclusion: You is wrong!

Welcome to the laws of physics...

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/1DKin/U1L5e.html

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae6.cfm

Objects free fall at the same rate regardless of mass if all other things are equal.

k5054
05-15-2004, 12:15 PM
OK, I found out that ballistic coefficient is what we need, it's weight divided by (drag coeff * area). That's a term which can be calculated and it applies for all normal conditions, height, speed etc, provided we eliminate the part of the drag that is due to lift, by having our dive at zero g.

Some time ago I worked out the flat plate area (thats drag coeff * area) for all the fighters of WW2 to see action, and a couple of other planes too, to check against published figures to see if my methods were good.
The data that follows is a raw shot at ranking them by ballistic coeff, which should be an indicator of dive performance at higher speeds.
there are some anomalies here, I know, and some a/c with bad input data causing problems. Also I wasn't using exhaust thrust then, so take this as a broad indication, not gospel.

********************
he219a7 2840
p51d 2741
me262 2727
p40n 2575
f4u4 2514
p51b 2456
p51a 2449
f4u1a 2346
tempest V 2332
p63a 2275
mosquito19 2270
fw190d9 2216
typhoon 2122
fw190a3 2092
p47n 2073
george 2027
p40e 2025
spitfire 14 2019
bf109g10 2013
firefly 1967
frank 1966
yak7 1951
p39d 1906
mosquito 2 1893
p40f 1893
p61 1889
bf109g2 1886
p38j 1869
jack 1868
f6f3 1848
yak9 1811
p40b 1800
re2005 1799
bf109k 1793
p47d 1790
mc202 1786
bf109f4 1780
yak3 1779
spitfire lf9 1755
mc205 1748
lanc 1700
p38f 1678
tony 1669
ju88c 1644
g55 1641
lagg3 1606
spitfire 7 1605
spitfire 12 1587
whirlwind 1576
ta152h 1565
re2001 1544
spitfire lf5 1541
me410 1508
la7 1505
seafire lf3 1500
spitfire 9 1497
ju88g6 1481
B24H 1477
bf109e3 1457
bf110c 1456
la5 1448
mig3 1439
ki100 1436
p66 1411
p43 1404
yak1 1375
spitfire 1 1374
bf110g4 1371
f2a3 1360
defiant 1359
he112 1359
f4f4 1349
beau 1 1340
hurricane 2 1330
tojo 1318
c714 1317
d520 1314
zeke52 1307
seafire lf2 1269
fulmar 1259
fm-2 1250
B17e 1214
re2000 1211
p36a/cycl 1193
zeke21 1170
p36a/wasp 1167
mb152 1145
zeke32 1121
g1 1115
ik3 1114
hurricane 1 1072
spitfire 6 1042
ms406 1040
oscar 1032
iar80 1031
bf109c 1029
p35 1005
nick 987
g50 976
mc200 970
I-16 929
cw21b 850
rex 821
rufe 717
potez631 701
dxxi 684
cr42 677
nate 671
claude 604
cr32 572
gladiator 522
I-153 520
ik2 501
avia b534 499
pzl24 491
pzl11 450

k5054
05-15-2004, 12:19 PM
Conclusion: You is wrong!

Welcome to the laws of physics...

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/1DKin/U1L5e.html

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae6.cfm

Objects free fall at the same rate regardless of mass if all other things are equal.

******************

Dear Hos, all other things are not equal here, that galileo stuff doesn't work with air resistance.

hos8367
05-15-2004, 02:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
Dear Hos, all other things are not equal here, that galileo stuff doesn't work with air resistance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its Newton, and the laws of phsics apply everywhere... But you missed my point. Many were saying heavier planes should dive faster because they are heavier alone. This is incorrect. Air resistance and the other factors are the ones that need to be addressed. Allow me to quote myself so you can have another read.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hos8367:
I dont see why you guys think heavier planes should dive faster then light planes. The laws of physics state that all things being equal objects of different weight fall at the same speed. Factors which would make one plane dive faster then another are aerodynamics, power, effeciency of converting power to energy. I'm not saying people are wrong in saying certain planes should outdive one another, but its not becuase of weight. However, weight would be a factor in the zoom after a dive.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

faustnik
05-15-2004, 03:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hos8367:
Its Newton, and the laws of phsics apply everywhere... But you missed my point. Many were saying heavier planes should dive faster because they are heavier alone. This is incorrect. Air resistance and the other factors are the ones that need to be addressed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think they are talking about a/c with higher weight and higher horsepower.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

SSJG52experten
05-16-2004, 11:46 PM
Dear Robban75

I had a look at those charts and i was a little confused. Could you find the time taken to climd from 1km-2km and the from 5km-5.5km at maximum flight performance with 100% fuel and "default" weapon loadout for the following planes: La7, Bf109K4, FW190D9, Yak3, P51.

Thanks

PlaneEater
05-17-2004, 01:07 AM
Oh dear....


Some of this makes me wonder how many bugs there still are to work out 'under the hood'.

This aspect of flight modeling should have been correct with the original IL2.

Lazy312
05-17-2004, 04:18 AM
"Lazy, Romm said he could leave Yak-3 standing in FW-190D. And accounts in JG26 and others make it apparent that the P-47 should even out-dive the Dora. Also, Yak-9U was heavier and more powerful than Yak-3."

Yak-9U and Yak-3 had nearly identical wingloading (Yak-3 had much smaller wing). So in terms of drag/weight ratio there was probably little difference. Yak-9U had more power but it was a bigger airplane.

Anyway my post was intended more generally - I would not make a quick assumptions like this one is heavy so it must be fast in a dive..

wooden planes, iron men

WWMaxGunz
05-17-2004, 06:03 AM
Hunde, I never wrote that YOU had stated those things. Please reread if you need to. I did state that those things have started to become a truism on the boards in multiple threads. Nor do I think that you call the FM **** yet some do.

I wasn't being personal so don't take it like that.

Yes, I don't think that the planes act just right in dives but no I don't think the difference is as big as some people would make it out to be.

If the P-47 should just be able to take off on a Dora then why on the ADFU tests did it take a P-47C 7,000 feet just to catch up with an A-4??? Must be something more than just relative weights and airframes there that's not being stated in the quotes, something dependant at least partly on the pilots as much as the planes.

I believe that the quotes are good but I do not believe that everyone can interpret them right and no way do they serve as blanket litmus tests for experiences IRL or in a sim.


Neal

WWMaxGunz
05-17-2004, 06:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
You are right to think the POWER is not dependent on airspeed, but the thrust is what opposes drag, and it is not independent of airspeed at all. In fact power = speed x thrust, so as the speed increases for constant power the thrust goes down. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's where you need to find prop thrust efficiency curves since thrust will be lower with higher speed (as applicable power; it doesn't change your formula just that there's less available power *from the prop* that full speed than at cruise engine power notwithstanding) and probably accounting for that will change your flat plate calculations for one.


Neal

k5054
05-17-2004, 10:48 AM
**

That's where you need to find prop thrust efficiency curves since thrust will be lower with higher speed (as applicable power; it doesn't change your formula just that there's less available power *from the prop* that full speed than at cruise engine power notwithstanding) and probably accounting for that will change your flat plate calculations for one.
**

It's my assumption that prop efficiency against speed is like an inverted bathtub, flat(ish) beween may 150 and 450 mph and dropping off each side. In fact some props could do .85+ in the middle section, but I use the widely accepted 0.8 between the shoulders of the curve. This should be good except for the very fastest prop fighters.
The flat plate areas I get match pretty well with the literature. There's a good list on the NACA site and I've corresponded with drag experts who maintain larger lists from multiple sources. FW have flat plates factory quoted down to six decimal places!!!
Having said that, you can't say when the prop starts to be driven by the air and then turns into a brake. This may be a big factor at 500mph+ speeds.

With the figures I have so far I can't see a major acceleration difference between fighters in a steep dive at speeds within the normal level range. Maybe 0.1g between similar types.
I don't think the sums are wrong here, they are certainly in the right ballpark. So how does a 3ft/sec/sec acceleration make a tactical difference enough to produce the anecdotal evidence? How does the AFDU P-47/190 comparison, the best documented test we have, fit the numbers? It doesn't look like one type could just dive away from another, but that's what the pilots say, so it can't be wrong. Unless we don't understand what they say.

JG14_Josf
05-17-2004, 12:42 PM
k5054 wrote:

"It doesn't look like one type could just dive away from another, but that's what the pilots say, so it can't be wrong. Unless we don't understand what they say."

What type of communication is the above quote?

Compared to this:

51. Dive - (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/pro_190_survey_b_4.jpg) Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the FW.190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages.

The later is a wartime evaluation report sent to advise Spitfire fighter pilots on how to survive when dealing with FWs.

The former sounds rather bold when it confesses to be based upon "assumtions" "Should be good" "match pretty well" "With the figures I have so far I can't see a major difference between fighters in a steep dive at speeds withing the normal level range."

Understanding what people say can be a problem. My guess is that the real pilots flying the real Spitfires understood what was being said by the AFDU reports and there is no possible way that such a statement as linked above concerning relative dive performance could be applicable to what exists in the game IL2.

The game generates this accurate statment:
51. Dive - Comparative dives between the three planes (Spitfire VB, FW190A-4, and P-47D) have shown to be identical with the only difference showing up at very high speeds where the Spitfire begins to shake and slow relative to the FW and P47.

Words have meaning and communication has a purpose. The ADFU test report's tried to convey knowledge of relative performance.

What is the purpose of rationalizing an obvious game error?

k5054
05-17-2004, 03:01 PM
I write what I find. The problem is that the AFDU report may be perfectly good for telling Spit pilots not to dive away from FWs, it doesn't give us any idea of what is going on. Is the FW 100 meters behind and ready to shoot, or is it 1km away? What is the dive entry speed? What is the altitude? How much does the faster diving a/c pull away? What is the maximum speed reached? what is the difference in dive acceleration. My figures put that acceleration difference in the 0.1g ballpark. In a car, that would be 1m/s/s, say 0-100kph in 27 seconds. well, not a car, more like a heavily loaded truck. At the end of the 27 seconds your truck would be 350m away. 27 seconds seems ample time to fill him full of 20mike.
I've got dive tests which show US fighters as not able to pull away from A6M2 in the early part of a dive.
As I said before , the theory should match the test data, and the anecdotes, and the game.
In fact, it seems the theory matches the game fairly well. The game error is not obvious, it needs testing. If you can't find numbers in the AFDU reports, well, they were not written with us in mind, but we need a more rigorous report than we have seen so far. You see, a fighter aircraft of this era accelerated at 0.1 to 0.2g in level flight for moderate speed. This you can find in AHT. I don't know what the same tests in the game have found. In a, say 45 degree dive, you get 0.7071g from gravity, and the rest is the acceleration provided by excess of thrust over drag. That bit is the same as the level accelartion, isn't it? So the comparison between two types in a 45 deg dive is (level acc 1 +.7071g) vs (level acc 2 + 0.7071g)
If you can't get these numbers, let's try and find somebody who can explain it better, or if my sums are wrong, let's find out how. But I can't see how one aircraft can just drive away from another similar type in a short time in the way hinted at by the anecdotal evidence, so my conclusion is we don't really know what they mean.

JG14_Josf
05-17-2004, 03:25 PM
I write what I observe.

I observer the use of the word 'we' when such a word implies that I am included when in fact I am not.

Meaning can at times be confusing but there is nothing confusing about this statement:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the FW.190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When the above quote is taken in context the meaning is made even more clear.

I observer another word 'us' being used where the implication is that I am included in that reference. Again I am not.

AFDU reports have me 'specifically' in mind. I share the desire that the report addresses; a need to know relative performance capabilities. The same desire that must have been realized by those fighter pilots to which the report is meant. I share the desire to know these capabilites and hope that clear and concise language can communicate the necessary information. I see no flaw in that reports ability to communicate exactly what the fighter pilots needed, without theory or any frivolous embellishment.

WWMaxGunz
05-17-2004, 09:49 PM
k5054: It's my assumption that prop efficiency against speed is like an inverted bathtub, flat(ish) beween may 150 and 450 mph and dropping off each side. In fact some props could do .85+ in the middle section, but I use the widely accepted 0.8 between the shoulders of the curve. This should be good except for the very fastest prop fighters.

Neal: The only graph I have is a typical shape kind of thing comparing prop power curve to jet power curve. It is a prop efficiency curve added to the linear formula that power as a constant = speed x thrust is. But without any values for domain and range I can't tell where the speed x thrust line should go to see the other shape by the difference. Still, since it's about efficiency the total curve has to be lower at all points than the speed x thrust line. The zero velocity efficiency is much higher than the max velocity efficiency, the left edge of the bath tub gets cut off by the speed=0 axis. I thought I could find a prop efficiency chart I had seen years ago but no luck and it did look a bit like your inverted bath tub if you count the sloped parts are not really steep except at the far right.

k5054: The flat plate areas I get match pretty well with the literature. There's a good list on the NACA site and I've corresponded with drag experts who maintain larger lists from multiple sources. FW have flat plates factory quoted down to six decimal places!!!
Having said that, you can't say when the prop starts to be driven by the air and then turns into a brake. This may be a big factor at 500mph+ speeds.

Neal: Wow! You've done your homework. I'd use their numbers to work out good approximates of the efficiencies.

k5054: With the figures I have so far I can't see a major acceleration difference between fighters in a steep dive at speeds within the normal level range. Maybe 0.1g between similar types.
I don't think the sums are wrong here, they are certainly in the right ballpark. So how does a 3ft/sec/sec acceleration make a tactical difference enough to produce the anecdotal evidence? How does the AFDU P-47/190 comparison, the best documented test we have, fit the numbers? It doesn't look like one type could just dive away from another, but that's what the pilots say, so it can't be wrong. Unless we don't understand what they say.

Neal: I don't think that there is such a discrepancy. It took me a long time to shift my view to where I could check my view as opposed to judge things according to my view but I started by checking on where in those reports and stories were all the parts of my pictures and conclusions (if this then that) were actually fully validated by the reports and stories. They aren't.

The biggest clue is the ADFU test results which don't match the pictures and conclusions raised by "left behind". The P-47 leaves the FW behind, we all know that by reading more than a dozen pilots accounts and judgements from both sides so it must be true. Those accounts don't say situations and what is not said is what the pilots don't think needed saying because it's common sense to them and takes in the scales of times and distances they knew so well. They didn't not say them because you can just fill in the blanks however you want. The ADFU report gave enough to see the P-47 not leaving the FW far behind until a ways after 7,000 ft and trailing it until then which grossly violates the easy to use blanket conclusions that shorter accounts and quotes provide.

So how does the dive advantage work? You get a lead such as the other plane is across the circle from you and gaining slowly that you can see and you dive for all you're worth knowing that he'll never catch up enough to get a decent shot. Or he's a ways back and coming into guns range so you point the nose down and he'll never get no closer provided you don't blow it. THAT matches the quotes.

100 yards looks like a lot when 2 planes are doing a side by side. It is a lot if you are already 300 yards or more ahead and the other guy wants to close for a shot. It's a lot more if you are picking up speed any faster than the other. But it ain't Jack if he was on your tail from Go and you aren't already 100mph or more faster which he still gets a shot.

If accounts and stories has people thinking as Clint puts it "Rock - Scissor - Paper" then those people should start checking their views.

I see an account that one plane was "better" than another being used to say the one should flat turn better at lower speed and I wonder how that was decided? I've read quotes, quite a few quotes saying that by late war the top planes of all nations were pretty closely matched. Those quotes are by some of the top pilots of at least 3 countries involved. Does that mean that all those planes should perform closely alike in every way??


This part ain't for you k5054, or anyone else the shoe don't fit:
Loose logic is a Fools' Tool. It don't matter what kind of logic it is. There is no magic method to quickly and easily see what is not easy. Some things are seen easily or said easily because there is a load of experience involved but the experience does not transfer to the reader of those words. The reader has to have the experience or hard knowledge to interpret the words correctly. The reader must have the wisdom or in applying those words incorrectly the reader has done a foolish thing.

I am very glad that the sim is closed, not open. I will take the mistakes of 1C over those of a lot of other people any time. It's good to point out errors but when doing so people should keep open that they may be wrong if not in the place they point but in the degree. And if anyone doesn't know by now why Oleg doesn't take loose data as justification for changes then they probably never will.

Robban, I can't send in the tracks you sent only because they a NTRK files and Oleg has sent back every one of those I submitted in the past for the reason that NTRK files do not contain all the data. I am guessing that 1C has analysis tools that use full TRK file data. But thank you very much for the files and yes I do think there should be more variation, just can't really say how much.


Neal

JG14_Josf
05-17-2004, 10:13 PM
Neal,

Thanks for making such a well reasoned post. It was my pleasure to read it.

I had an idea during dinner that may help clarify my concern.

Imagine what the game would be like if the dive performance model worked the same as the climb performance model or visa versa.

Since my own testing (including track files that no one wanted) shows how the Spitfire, FW, and P-47 all dive at the same rate (up until the Spitfire started to shake apart) my question will be limited to those three planes.

Imagine that those three planes were to be modeled with the same climb rate.

No consider the effect of this climb parity on tactics.

I have no difficulty in understanding why even a little difference in dive performance is better than no difference at all.

Performance differences determine tactics just as much as relative energy states and relative possitions.

Real pilots knew enough not to try to out climb a better climbing plane. This is simple stuff.

The game models differences in climb rates and therefore we the pretend pilots that are savy enough to recognize that the plane we are fighting has a better climb rate will know enough not to try out climbing it.

Real pilots knew enough not to try out diving a P-47.

Can that be said for our pilots in the game?

Recognizing the error is the first step toward recognizing improvement once the next best sim becomes available.

I will leave lobbying Maddox games up to others; good luck in that regard.

WWMaxGunz
05-17-2004, 11:31 PM
Because in steep dives where we see what we term as a problem in the sim, gravity is the dominating force until very high speed is reached. And gravity is funny in this way that while more mass is harder to hold up and generates more force downward it still accelerates no faster than less mass. The force of acceleration is the same. Gravity is a constant.

Until there is enough total drag to effectively counter mass x gravity of the plane, it pretty much falls by the gravity curve which is to say some drag will slow the plane from accelerating some. And if I have two planes where one is heavier but also bigger with more drag then I can't go by weight alone. The difference will tell in time as distance and speed but only in time, the factor not shown in many, many quotes.

Climb, OTOH is not just about thrust and gravity but also about lift and there you have a reason not to think it is greatly analogous to a steep or even moderately steep dive. We don't use lift in those.


Neal

faustnik
05-17-2004, 11:58 PM
Neal,

Does lift have a big effect on dive as well as climb speed? Should planes with higher wing loading dive faster if power is equal?

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

k5054
05-18-2004, 02:11 AM
I wouldn't start bringing lift into this, it's just going to be confusing. In a steady climb, lift (plus a bit of thrust depending on the angle) balances weight. In fact in any attitude, there's an excess (or deficit) of thrust over drag. In modern aircraft comparisons we use a figure called specific excess power, which is excess power divided by mass and comes out in ft/sec or m/sec, can be + or -. That, as you will notice, could be expressed as a climb rate. Or it could be used to overcome the extra drag of pulling g, or to accelerate.

I'm interested in the picture of commencing the dive from half a circle away from your co-speed pursuer. That gives you a (say) ten-second start (more at altitude). Maybe our question should be, "can you catch a diving opponent given a ten second start, and how much time and altitude will it take?" Anybody able to test that in AEP?

k5054
05-18-2004, 02:29 AM
Josf,
My use of we is a sort of hangover from the teachers who taught me this stuff, it's a common usage when trying to help people follow a train of logic, it's not meant to imply agreement from all concerned.
When you did the dive tests, were the speeds exactly the same, or somewhat the same? I'm envisaging a 45 degree dive in say the spitfire and the P-47 is accelerating away opening the distance like if you were standing still and he was driving a bus from 0 speed, that is, not very fast . That's what I can see in the figures. Is that what AFDU meant? AFDU doesn't say, and they DO NOT WANT the spit pilot to be in any doubt, so they don't tell him this dive may work at 30,000ft from 250mph but not from 10,000ft at 180mph, they tell him the FW leaves the spitfire in a dive. But we don't know anything about the circumstances at all, including such things as how much boost the spit was using? Do you imagine a spit using 9lbs would be the same as one using 16lbs? No, but both may be found as max boost used in spitfire flight tests, and 12lbs too.

WWMaxGunz
05-18-2004, 06:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Neal,

Does lift have a big effect on dive as well as climb speed? Should planes with higher wing loading dive faster if power is equal?

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
http://www.7jg77.com
_http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here I think you may have found the missing part in the sim IF the sim does not indeed account for mach effects. Even more than the prop I think (and only that!) that wings going over the speed where they start having mach effects makes more drag. Different parts of the plane will have displaced air pass machspeed sooner than the whole plane will and of course thicker wings displace air farther. I wonder if width is in there or if wing width is just always a drag, narrower wings having less drag?

Prop tips will pass mach even sooner I am guessing. They have the speed of their rotation already high and the forward speed is not added directly but the path they trace gets longer and longer for any given time. When the prop begins to go mach shouldn't it shake and lose thrust/make drag on the engine? None of that is good for the motor, especially one running high boost. Starting a dive at full power might save ya but I've only read of record trials where the pilot didn't throttle back and decrease pitch/rpms. But I don't read so much.

There is some kind of machspeed coding done in the sim that you can see as handling getting poor to very bad before the planes blow up. The shaking I think is that. It seems like a canned effect and if so then I only guess that mach over the wings drag is not integral.

And it should make a difference for some planes at 300mph even. In the old Aces of the Pacific that ran off tables, the early Zeroes had that just a bit over 300mph. That is not real fast.

It would be soooooo nice to hear from Oleg or the dev team on this.


Neal

[This message was edited by WWMaxGunz on Tue May 18 2004 at 05:21 AM.]

JG14_Josf
05-18-2004, 08:41 AM
k5054 wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But we don't know anything about the circumstances at all, including such things as how much boost the spit was using? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"We" may not know anything about those circumstances but I do and this type of information is available for those who find value in it.

12lbs/sq. in @ 3000RPM (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/pro_190_survey_b_3.jpg)

My dive tests were not as good as others who have drawn the same conclusions. My dive tests were done off-line. My concern is relative combat advantage and you will find, as others have, if you are interested; that no such dive acceleration advantage exists in the game other than variance in Vmax.

You can 'envisage' whatever your imagination allows, the fact is that an obvious combat advantage existed in reality where one does not exist in the game.

Some of us would rather have a flight simulator that simulates what history records while others seem to want reality to conform to what is found in the current game.

Currently the game has no dive acceleration difference. I know this to be an error, a flight model simplification.

Believe whatever you want, what can it hurt?

faustnik
05-18-2004, 10:02 AM
Thanks for the reply Neal. I appreciate the patience of members of this forum with technical knowledge in explaining these issues to the rest of us. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

There is a lot of interesting material in this thread. It would be helpful to hear from Oleg on this subject as acceleration and dive speed are so important in many of our fighting methods.

Differences in dive acceleration will be even more important in Pacific Fighters. The 4F4s will not have a speed advatage over the A6Ms. The only advantage of the F4F will be dive acceleration and dive speed. Without it, the USN will be in big trouble.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

k5054
05-18-2004, 04:56 PM
Josf,
Thanks for the boost info, I've seen the AFDU reports in many books quoted, but never that page. Interesting to see they used 1.42 ata for the FW too, this gives a clear basis for comparison.

What I don't get from your posts is how much acceleration in the dive will you expect to see. The aircraft specs and the right equations will give a good picture of what the acceleration difference is, the problem is how the numbers translate to what you see from the cockpit. You seem to have an expectation that the FW will pull away from the Spit V. Surely it will, all the data and the reports and the anecdotes all agree. If the game doesn't do that (and my spit always falls to pieces way too soon) then the game is wrong. However, how much does it pull away in real life? How far ahead is the FW after 10 secs, 20 , 30? The only measure I'm aware of is the P-47/FW level test, where it's 200 yds in an acceleration from 210 to 275 mph. Probably in about half a minute, depending on which aircraft gets to 275 when the measurement is taken.

I don't want reality to conform to the game, I want to reconcile the reports, the sums and the stories. Then maybe we'll see if the game is wrong.
I have been surprised at the way the numbers work out, the small differences in acceleration, as I had a long-standing impression that weight would make a difference. Now I know that's only true at high speeds and steep dives, where in fact the sums don't help as the drag and prop assumptions don't stand up. Maybe we ought to forget about slow entry speeds and make the comparison at faster speeds.
It also seems to me that any physics-based flight model would use the same formulae as I do (it really can't do anything else if it pretends to be real) and has the same high speed problem, the data is just not available to get it right and has to be guessed/approximated. So chances are the sim doesn't adequately model prop behaviour at high speed or mach-related drag rise. It certainly seems to fake compressibility effects, and it also doesn't allow a pilot to bust the dive speed limit as they all used to.

k5054
05-18-2004, 05:03 PM
Faustnik,
I have two test reports of wildcat vs Zeke. In the A6M2 vs F4F the aircraft were equal in dive. In the A6M5 vs FM-2 the Zero had a slight initial advantage. Be careful when you dive away from the Zeke in PF! There's going to be whinig about this if Ilya gets it right.

JG14_Josf
05-18-2004, 07:30 PM
k5054,

What I expect to see in a combat flght simulator is a dive situation that can be described in such a way as to be in-line with the real combat pilot acounts. Currently that is not the case.

I thought my analogy with climb performance would suffice to illustrate this perspective.

Pilot accounts describe situations where a plane will out-climb another plane. I see no reason to support this observation with evidence. The same arguments now used to rationalize the accounts describing relative dive performance differences can be used to rationalize relative climb performance differences. However, the game does model differences in climb performance.
How much of a difference in the game's climb performances is analogous to how much difference existed in reality for relative dive perofrmance?
Perhaps a significant combat advantage; one plane can out-climb another plane and one plane can out-dive another plane.

Currently the only way a P-47 can out dive a Spitfire is at speeds above the point where the Spitfire begins to shake apart.

Currently the the P-47 cannot out-dive a FW190A.

Back to my climb advantage analogy:
It must be clear that a pilot has an option to dissengage from a fight before or as the fight deteriorates into a defensive situation if his plane does have a climb advantage. Not only is the option to dissengage present when one plane has a climb advantage over another but that same advantage can be used to gain energy and relative possition. A small climb advantage represents a need to disengage early. An insignificant climb advantage is a very limited offensive combat advantage requiring excessive time to build up a usable altitude/possition/energy advantage. A large climb advantage represents an advantage that increases offensive capabilities allowing the pilot to stay and fight longer before the need arises to use the dissengagment option.
That larger climb advantage also allows the pilot to return to the fight quicker because the larger climb advantage builds separation and energy quicker.

Climb advantages, in the game, represent a combat advantage, the larger the difference in climb rate the greater the advantage.

What would the game be like if all the planes climbed at the same rate?

What would the game be like if a P-47 could separate and gain distance from an FW190A-4 and that same FW190 was able to separate and gain distance from a Spitfire in a dive before the spitfire reached that 750kph speed where it begins to shake?

I propose that a new dimension would be added to the game, just as the dimention of energy fighting is now afforded to the planes with better climb rates.

If you are inclined to guess at what the problem is and why so many pilot accounts describe dive performance acceleration differences in 'no uncertain terms' (words have meaning) while the game only differentiates in VMax or top dive speed ability, than that is your business.

My guess is that an obvious simplification is known and my hope is that the new game: BOB will be better in this regard.

If not then light weight low wingloaded planes that lend themselves well to angles tactics will continue to have an artificial advantage in the next combat flight sim too.

Then again perhaps the new sim will allow one plane such as the P-47 to have a combat advantage in dive acceleration over another plane such as the FW190. P-47 jockeys will catch those FW190 if they are so foolish to try diving away. FW190 drivers will need to just let those P-47s go.

If the new sim does model physics in such a way as to better mimic reality (real combat pilot accounts) then my guess is also that the FW190 will show up as a better in close dog fighter for the same reason that the P-47 will be afforded a significant combat advantage.

Then again those two planes were merely fighter bombers (targets) right?

faustnik
05-18-2004, 09:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
Faustnik,
I have two test reports of wildcat vs Zeke. In the A6M2 vs F4F the aircraft were equal in dive. In the A6M5 vs FM-2 the Zero had a slight initial advantage. Be careful when you dive away from the Zeke in PF! There's going to be whinig about this if Ilya gets it right.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please post those tests k5054! I have not seen actual tests only anecdotal descriptions. I would certainly accept your actaul tests over pilots recollections. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

Tetrapharmakoi
05-18-2004, 09:40 PM
Thank you ,Jg.14 Josf, for taking the time to post your messages for making the game even better that it is .
You are absolutely right , and a lot of virtual pilots already pointed that fact in the past according to dive acceleration of P-47 , P-51 , Fw's etc... (energy fighters)
I hope Oleg took this observations into account and had the intellectual honesty to recognize it and fix it in the upcoming patch.

WWMaxGunz
05-19-2004, 12:45 AM
K5054:

10 seconds into a near vertical powerdive started at combat speed and you are well into extreme speeds. I don't think that the Spits will handle either that or much more. For sure the shaking will be in effect. 10 seconds at vertical is a good bit of time when you start at 400kph.

Less steep dives are still steep. 30 degrees downward is pretty damn steep and more likely to show dive differences in planes as the G effect is 1/2 and there's more time. We look at tests and we can get what second plus what alt to a +/- 50m accuracy (speedbar) and speed to +/- 10kph accuracy (speedbar, guages lag IRL).

A 10 degree dive is more likely to show what the game mechanics are doing with purely dive related factors and in a more accurate way. But since someone noticed that vertical dives didn't agree with "what they read" (assumes a lot, the reader has become an unfallable expert) then every "test" concentrates exactly there.


Neal

WWMaxGunz
05-19-2004, 01:06 AM
Climb advantage:

Plane A has a climb advantage over Plane B. However Plane A climbs with an advantage in the 260-320kph speed range with decreasing advantage at increasing speed. That's okay with plane A as it is a ferocious turnfighter that really kicks butt when Plane B is at 320kph or below.

What happens when Plane A is at 300kph and decides to use the old climb advantage when Plane B comes flying in at a hard to judge from Plane A 420 kph? Answer, Plane A gets caught up with quickly, shot up badly and passed in the climb by Plane B.

If A and B are co-E with Plane B not far behind Plane A and Plane A decides to use the climb advantage for immediate evasion then the pilot of Plane B will again have him for lunch as Plane B will be able to get him in the zoom unless they're going so slow that Plane B can barely maneuver (we don't see that situation described in "my plane can't turn well enough at low speeds" posts, do we?) let alone zoom.

Climb advantage is best used when you have the seperation to use it as was pointed out. The same goes for dives only actually less so. When you climb at all, you slow down immediately which even a shallow dive gets you speed from go.

I can see a problem where a plane with a known dive advantage can be shadowed by one that should be losing distance steadily at least in the dive. But that takes either a very very long steep dive (hide down on the deck?) or a more efficient regular dive calculated for distance seperation (as in run or long extension). How is that online? Anyone able to leave FW's behind in a P-47 with a long and relatively shallow dive?

Are ALL dives in all planes the same at least up to the speed limits of the planes?


Neal

AB_Onedoc
05-19-2004, 02:25 AM
AS far as real life the whole thing is complicated yet simple. One of the big components is drag. Aircraft with high lift have high drag and especially at speed, otherwise, why wouldn't bombers with all their weight and multi engines be the best divers of them all?

Consider the weight as thrust and make a simple formulae (prop thrust) + (pull of gravity)- drag = diving ability. I have a lot of DVD and VHS with Thunderbolt footage and in one the guy shows how agile the Jug is in sissoring and how easily and quickly it rolls and why it could dogfight way better than you would expect for such a heavy plane, and describes how light it was on the controls. Then he points the nose down just a little and it amazing how fast it gains speed. This is modern times, not training films. There was a reason jug pilots did not try a split S below 10,000 ft actual alt. Because it would gain speed so fast it would plow in before they could complete the loop.

I think a lot of the frustration is because when you have a plane that can't use one of it's greatest strengths is left with only weaknesses it is a bit frustrating for the fans of that plane. People love this game because it is suppose to be a SIM not just a game. The difference in dive acceleration and Vmax is there in CFS1 and 2 and to some extent FA. I believe it is the code that is accountable for this huge error in FM in ILFB/AEP. Otherwise Oleg would not let microsoft one up him on this part of the FM.

handicapped by FM or not, I will continue to carry on with the Jug, if it was taken from the game I would quit the game and I don't see this getting fixed any time soon if ever.

Watch Your Six ya'll

AB_Onedoc

JG14_Josf
05-19-2004, 09:08 AM
AB_Onedoc,

Thanks for the post. Having flown Hang Gliders I understand this relationship with drag and weight. To me it was obvious, the more weight the less drag. We called it penetration.

Anyways that physical relationship appears to me as a mathematical fetish for others, but perhaps this is a product of envy. Really I am at a loss to understand it.

It occured to me that my perspective, that of wanting a flight simulator that is more in-line with fighter pilot accounts is not so much a desire on my part as a recognition.

I am inclinded to put more value in a flight simulator that the real pilots would find familiar and recognizable.

If Gabby Gabresky were to have found reason to take up the hobby of simulated fighter combat I wonder if he would have recognized his plane in what the game IL2 has managed to represent.

<A HREF="http://www.acepilots.com/usaaf_gabby.html" TARGET=_blank>
----------------------
The new Captain Gabreski reported to ...</A>
...Spitfires...They were better than the P-40s in every respect except diving; they were just too light.

Despite its size, the P-47 was a nice handling plane, with the smooth roar of its big radial engine. Its climb performance wasn't much; but it had outstanding roll and spectacular dive speed.
------------------------

As to the tactical use of a climb advantage:

There is a reason why it is a good idea to fly higher than the enemy and there is a reason to fly faster than the enemy whenever that capacity is within possibility before meeting up with the enemy.

Once the enemy is spotted the idea is to judge relative energy states. Some clues exist that can help in this regard. For instance if the enemy plane is higher it is likely that the enemy will have more energy.

If after the first pass the enemy makes a 180 degree turn and is closing the gap, even though your plane flew straight then it is safe to say that the enemy has an energy advantage.

Here is where a clear understanding of relative performance becomes important. If the enemy is still out of range but closing and if both planes are flying level, and if it is known that the enemy plane has a clear level speed advantage, and if it is known that your plane has a clear climb speed advantage then it should be no surprise that the enemy plane continues to close the gap in level flight.

If the plane behind is closing (Lag is an issue that can warp ones perception of relative possition) but still out of range and if your plane has a climb advantage it is important to start climbing well before the enemy is in range. Because a climb will offer the enemy an angles advantage, he can cut the turn by using any excess energy he has left to zoom climb ahead of your flight path, he can lead turn you into your climb, but only if he has excess energy.

The keen ability to judge relative energy states cannot be stressed enough if the idea is to make sound decisions during combat.

Climb speed advantages exist and are useful in gaining advantage over planes that do not have such an advantage, in the game.

The P-47 in the game has nothing even closely resembling a dive advantage, unless compared to another plane that happens to have a lower Vmax which is certainly nothing resembling spectacular.

WWMaxGunz
05-19-2004, 09:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
AB_Onedoc,

Thanks for the post. Having flown Hang Gliders I understand this relationship with drag and weight. To me it was obvious, the more weight the less drag. We called it penetration.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

More weight = less drag?

Is that because the ballasted gliders go faster?

I know the reason has been given to you before but I think Ugly may try again. You trust him more than me, I'm sure.


Neal

JG14_Josf
05-19-2004, 10:50 AM
Neal,

I trust my own personal experience.

We can sit at our desks and formulate or describe but if we fail to replicate experience then we fail.

k5054
05-19-2004, 11:24 AM
I believe it is wrong (as of pre-patch at least) but the problem is how will we know if it's fixed if the only evidence is not clear? I know what the numbers mean, you (Josf) don't have a clue of what constitutes the reality, except that of one a/c is better than another in an unspecified dive.

What I wrote above should not be read as thinking there is a fix coming.

k5054
05-19-2004, 11:38 AM
posted 18-05-04 20:07 Tue May 18 2004 08:07 PM
quote:Originally posted by k5054:
Faustnik,
I have two test reports of wildcat vs Zeke. In the A6M2 vs F4F the aircraft were equal in dive. In the A6M5 vs FM-2 the Zero had a slight initial advantage. Be careful when you dive away from the Zeke in PF! There's going to be whinig about this if Ilya gets it right.

Please post those tests k5054! I have not seen actual tests only anecdotal descriptions. I would certainly accept your actaul tests over pilots recollections.
***********************************
The tests are in Zero Fighter by Robert C Mikesh.
The first was done with the A6M2 at San Diego, vs P-38, 39,40,51A, F4F-4, F4U-1. Dec 42.

The F4F bit..."In a dive the two planes were equal with the exception that the Zero's engine cut in pushovers" summary; F4F pretty much worse at everything else save high speed maneuvers, as one already knew.
Aside: they used up to 70 in boost on the P-39D, which out-climbed the Zero to 10,000ft!

Test 2, a A6M5 from Saipan, late 44.
"The Zero was slightly superior to FM-2 in initial dive acceleration, after which the dives were about the same. Zomms were about equal for the two aircraft."

The later test is available in more detail in WW2 fighter conflict by Alfred Price. Other a/c are Hellcat, Corsair and Seafire LIIC.

JG14_Josf
05-19-2004, 11:40 AM
k5054,

There are advantages to being clueless. My mind remains open.

As combat flight simulators become more and more refined we will see just who does or does not understand what constitutes a better simulation of reality.

WWMaxGunz
05-19-2004, 03:15 PM
I have built and flew model planes since early, back in 1968. I learned theory and practice basics that way. Not just books. What I made flew as it was supposed to.

You add weight to your glider then it gains more energy for height lost. It needs that as with more weight it needs more lift which can only be gotten with more speed. The lighter glider will have a better glide slope at any given speed than the same glider with ballast.
They both have the same shape and size, the same amount of drag at the same speed. And here is just for you... the faster the glider goes past near stall, the more drag it makes in a square relationship. 2x faster = 4x drag.
There is also induced drag being more for the extra weight. What do you think L/D is? Lift to Drag Ratio, for any amount of lift there is so much drag by ratio.

Just because it goes faster doesn't mean less drag.

There now you have a clue but can you hold onto it?


Neal

JG14_Josf
05-19-2004, 04:52 PM
Neal,

I tend to use quotes from those who indisputably (if we restrict ourselves to reason and facts) know more than either of us when it comes to the subject of air combat.

See Chapter 8 (http://flighttest.navair.navy.mil/unrestricted/FTM108/)

"As shown in Eq 8.3, for a given aircraft, the glide angle is determined soley by its lift-to-drag ratio, which is independent of weight.

I suggest strongly that if you take up gliding; it is in your best interest to know the facts.

k5054
05-19-2004, 05:06 PM
The lighter glider will have a better glide slope at any given speed than the same glider with ballast.
***********************************

At any given speed is the crucial part here. To maintain the glide slope the heavier glider goes faster. And indeed in competition that's why they carry ballast. To put it another way, if the heavy glider wants to fly at the same speed as the lighter one, it will need a greater angle of attack, which means a less than optimum l/d.
Typically gliders fly for best l/d and the speed is varied to suit.

WWMaxGunz
05-20-2004, 12:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
"As shown in Eq 8.3, for a given aircraft, the glide angle is determined soley by its lift-to-drag ratio, _which is independent of weight._

I suggest strongly that if you take up gliding; it is in your best interest to know the facts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know the facts and even better, I know what the terms MEAN and HOW the WORK. I don't need to concoct my own science.

Lift to Drag Ratio. Of course that is independant of weight. Do you think for one second that means that weight doesn't play upon drag????

Do you know what Ratio means? In this case it means that Lift and Drag are coupled. Increase Lift and you increase Drag. What holds the glider up? Lift. What comes with Lift? Drag. What does Lift hold up? Weight. More Weight needs more Lift gets more Drag. Cart and pony, they both move together.

How do you get more lift to hold the extra weight on the same glide path? Only by going faster.

ANYONE who flies a powered airplane will tell you that it takes more fuel to fly a loaded plane even at level cruise than an unloaded plane. It is part of flight planning. Ask them why.

There is other drag besides the drag from lift as well. It has nothing to do with weight but everything to do with speed and the relative amount is with the square of the difference in speed at the speed range you'll get in your glider.

Keep grasping wildly. Is it easier than learning?

K5054: Yah that is why I state things the way I do. No trick question. No tricks at all. Just that without that condition of 'at the same speed' there is no right way to say that and in fact it becomes a trick or falsehood without it. Of course it does presume a reader who can pick up and either understand or work out what is said and why.


Neal

JG14_Josf
05-20-2004, 09:10 AM
Neal,

Thinly veiled insults remain insults and they measure your desparation. I am begining to see your base intent to simply destroy communication. You would make for an effective politician in the cult of personality. Truth has no meaning, and the ends justify the means.

If you can show where I concoct my own science please do and perhaps I can defend that charge on merit rather than opinion.

Your earlier sentence, if anyone is prone to making things up, is in direct contradition to what I know through experience to be true.

Explaining reality in numbers and sentences is bound to come up short.

What you call grasping wildy (double speak) I call thinking, therefore what you call learning can only mean blindly accepting convention or dogma.

Contradictions exist between how real pilots describe air combat and what is simulated in the game. When you positivily identify the reasons for those contradictions and can present them in a readable form please do and at that time you will be in a possition to judge me as inferior. Not until then.

Currrently you are simply wrong.

Neal wrote:

"The lighter glider will have a better glide slope at any given speed than the same glider with ballast."

Given speed: Ballasted gliders best glide speed.

WWMaxGunz
05-20-2004, 09:02 PM
I have been understating the case and being nice.

You don't follow what is written and I am sure never even try.

Laws of thermodynamics mean nothing to you as do even classical mechanics and yet you try and say I am wrong.

If that had substance, I could grow plants in it but only if I mixed it with a lot of poor soil to cut the strength lest the roots burn from the concentration of it.

I wrote exactly WHY the ballasted glider goes faster. Get one without ballast at the same speed and the suck will climb. But I suppose that either means nothing to you or somehow proves the ballasted glider has less drag since that is your pre-judged conclusion.

As I wrote before, go talk to someone like an instructor. Insult him as you do me. Of course you will not believe you are doing so but yes you do and it is why you catch flak coming back.


Neal

JG14_Josf
05-20-2004, 09:18 PM
Neal,

I must appologize for the insult. You win. No longer is it in my best interest to read your posts.

If you continue propagandizing it will have to go unchallenged by me.

If it continues unchallenged on these boards then my defeat will be complete and I will move on.


Take care

robban75
05-22-2004, 06:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SSJG52experten:
Dear Robban75

I had a look at those charts and i was a little confused. Could you find the time taken to climd from 1km-2km and the from 5km-5.5km at maximum flight performance with 100% fuel and "default" weapon loadout for the following planes: La7, Bf109K4, FW190D9, Yak3, P51.

Thanks<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry for this late reply, I must have missed it!

Below are some climbtimes, although they are quite old, I do think they can be used even for the latest patch. These climbs were made on the Finland map Nr:11, so climbtimes are somewhat worse than for the Crimea map, but only just.

Full throttle, 100% fuel, 270km/h climbspeed, radiator auto. time in minutes and seconds.

La-7

1000m - 0:38
2000m - 1:19
3000m - 2:08
4000m - 2:58
5000m - 3:48
6000m - 4:41
7000m - 5:48
8000m - 7:11
9000m - 9:00


D-9 ´45, same procedure as above.

1000m - 0:47
2000m - 1:36
3000m - 2:28
4000m - 3:13
5000m - 4:01

A-9

1000m - 0:55
2000m - 1:50
3000m - 2:53
4000m - 3:52
5000m - 4:51

A-5

1000m - 0:56
2000m - 1:52
3000m - 2:53
4000m - 3:55
5000m - 4:52

Zero

1000m - 0:52
2000m - 1:42
3000m - 2:38
4000m - 3:39
5000m - 4:37

(I probably could have bettered the time from 3000m to 5000m, cause I changed to stage 2 in the turbocharger way too late)


P-51D(25% fuel) I reckon nobody flies the P-51 with more fuel in the tank.

1000m - 0:49
2000m - 1:34
3000m - 2:26
4000m - 3:14
5000m - 4:12

La-5(not F or FN)

1000m - 0:47
2000m - 1:32
3000m - 2:25
4000m - 3:26
5000m - 4:30(RL 6min)
6000m - 5:36
7000m - 6:54

Bf 109G-2, Check out this climbfreak!!!

1000m - 0:43
2000m - 1:24
3000m - 2:07
4000m - 2:49
5000m - 3:32(!)
6000m - 4:19

P-39Q-10

1000m - 0:58
2000m - 1:49
3000m - 2:41
4000m - 3:33
5000m - 4:33(!)
6000m - 5:46


http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

WWMaxGunz
05-23-2004, 07:44 AM
Hi Robban and S!

I *was* expecting a change in steep & fast dive behaviour and now I just don't know. You get anything different?

Tks for the tracks, they were nice even though I couldn't send them in. Oleg does not accept ntrk files. But tks just the same, I still have em too!


Neal