PDA

View Full Version : Thrust, drag and energy



JG4_Helofly
06-26-2007, 11:59 AM
Hi,

The question here is: what's wrong with thrust, drag and energy modeling.
I would like to discuss about how these things are modeled in the game compared to RL.
This is also a try to continue the discussion which was locked due to massive insults.
RL test and in-game tests are welcome, but try to discuss without insulting this time.

So the first question is: Is thrust too effectif in the game? In this case it would favor light planes with relatively high thrust.

Next question is: What influence does the inexistance of compressibility have on the outcome of a dive and zoom? And what about the fact that planes accelerate much too fast in this game.

...

Let's go

M_Gunz
06-26-2007, 12:48 PM
Are you already knowing the reality of this "what's wrong with" or just starting with that?

Otherwise, good luck.

Freelancer-1
06-26-2007, 12:57 PM
There's the first half of the reason this will get locked http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The other half will be along shortly, no doubt http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

It would be nice to have a civil discussion once, but I just don't see it happening.

Good luck, though and I hope you get what you're looking for before this thread degenerates too badly http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

na85
06-26-2007, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
Hi,

The question here is: what's wrong with thrust, drag and energy modeling.
I would like to discuss about how these things are modeled in the game compared to RL.
This is also a try to continue the discussion which was locked due to massive insults.
RL test and in-game tests are welcome, but try to discuss without insulting this time.

So the first question is: Is thrust too effectif in the game? In this case it would favor light planes with relatively high thrust.

Next question is: What influence does the inexistance of compressibility have on the outcome of a dive and zoom? And what about the fact that planes accelerate much too fast in this game.

...

Let's go

There's nothing WRONG with Thrust-drag or energy modeling,

It's just that some times the calculations are very involved and the physics gets very complex. As a result, there arises much debate over which method is more accurate, given a set of certain simplifying assumptions.

M_Gunz
06-26-2007, 02:17 PM
Freelancer, there has never been more than bad claims and bad "tests" to back that OLD-OLD
idea up. Ja-Ra and others OTOH have come here time to time since almost 5 years now showing
that there is nothing much wrong with gravity, drag, and the rest more than a few times.

All I'd like to know is why start out assuming "wrong"? From there you have a full crew of
die-hards who use "wrong" as the checksum -- no matter what anything says, if it does not
come up with the sim being out of whack by more than a small margin, that is not acceptable.
In the meantime things that AE's like Crumpp provides are dismissed by bowling balls to
feathers comparisons, or cannon shell trajectories at multiple-mach, or Raaid-devices.

I'll give points for this at least, it's not another Red vs Blue thread!

na85
06-26-2007, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:

All I'd like to know is why start out assuming "wrong"? From there you have a full crew of
die-hards who use "wrong" as the checksum -- no matter what anything says, if it does not
come up with the sim being out of whack by more than a small margin, that is not acceptable.
In the meantime things that AE's like Crumpp provides are dismissed by bowling balls to
feathers comparisons, or cannon shell trajectories at multiple-mach, or Raaid-devices.


I think he meant his original post as "Why is it that analyses of thrust, drag, and energy cause so much drama?"

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Also stop picking on Raaaid

KraljMatjaz
06-26-2007, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
RL test and in-game tests are welcome, but try to discuss without insulting this time.


huh, this is exactly the reason why I left posting at these forums a long time ago, and when I tried it again a couple of weeks ago, i got my fingers burnt once again. some people believe they can throw everything they want to somebody over the internet as they cannot see the difference between discussing the facts and the 'duel' of insulting.

JG4_Helofly
06-26-2007, 03:09 PM
there are some things which are wrong. The comperssibility effect does not exist for exemple. Decreased prop efficency is also not modeled. All this has been shown by the C++ calculation made by Holzauge. And there was a dive acceleration test ( RL ) with a p47 compared to in-game. The result was that the plane accelerat much too fast.

The question I ask myself is what is the effect of these missing factors on relative flight performance. Should heavy low drag planes gain more distance in dives and zooms than light planes with much thrust (in RL)? Are planes with high thrust and light weight advantaged in the game.
What would change or would be different if these pretty important factors would be modeled? What would be the effect?

na85
06-26-2007, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
there are some things which are wrong. The comperssibility effect does not exist for exemple. Decreased prop efficency is also not modeled. All this has been shown by the C++ calculation made by Holzauge. And there was a dive acceleration test ( RL ) with a p47 compared to in-game. The result was that the plane accelerat much too fast.

The question I ask myself is what is the effect of these missing factors on relative flight performance. Should heavy low drag planes gain more distance in dives and zooms than light planes with much thrust (in RL)? Are planes with high thrust and light weight advantaged in the game.
What would change or would be different if these pretty important factors would be modeled? What would be the effect?

Ahh, I misunderstood your first post

JG4_Helofly
06-26-2007, 03:52 PM
"Ahh, I misunderstood your first post"

My bad, I am not a native english speaker and school english is not always perfect for expression http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

AKA_TAGERT
06-26-2007, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
there are some things which are wrong. The comperssibility effect does not exist for exemple. Decreased prop efficency is also not modeled.
As for compressibility..

I have heard that Oleg himself said compressibility is not molded. But that does not make it wrong as in an error/bug. It was just a choice on Oleg's part.. as in he felt there were more important things to spend his limited time and money on (read most bang for the buc), in that there are limits to what can be simulated.

As for prop efficiency..

I have never heard anyone comment on that. So, what do you base that statment on? What test did you do that proves there is something wrong with prop efficency?


Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
All this has been shown by the C++ calculation made by Holzauge.
Guess I missed that one too?

Not sure what these C++ calculations are suppose to be.. but.. why would you take Holzauge's results over Oleg's results?

Did you have some real world data you compared to and found that Holzaug's simulator (C++ calculations) got better results than Oleg's simulator (IL2)?


Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
And there was a dive acceleration test ( RL ) with a p47 compared to in-game. The result was that the plane accelerat much too fast.
Got track?
Got data?

Reason I ask is allot of people have made claims in the past that upon further investigation of the track file the sim was fine and it was the test method that was in error.


Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
The question I ask myself is what is the effect of these missing factors on relative flight performance. Should heavy low drag planes gain more distance in dives and zooms than light planes with much thrust (in RL)? Are planes with high thrust and light weight advantaged in the game.
Good question

Assuming there is a real problem and not just a mistake in the comparison of the C++ code to IL2 or the real world data to the IL2 results.


Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
What would change or would be different if these pretty important factors would be modeled? What would be the effect?
I guess it depends on how far off they are.. percent error wise.

M_Gunz
06-26-2007, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
there are some things which are wrong. The comperssibility effect does not exist for exemple. Decreased prop efficency is also not modeled. All this has been shown by the C++ calculation made by Holzauge. And there was a dive acceleration test ( RL ) with a p47 compared to in-game. The result was that the plane accelerat much too fast.

The question I ask myself is what is the effect of these missing factors on relative flight performance. Should heavy low drag planes gain more distance in dives and zooms than light planes with much thrust (in RL)? Are planes with high thrust and light weight advantaged in the game.
What would change or would be different if these pretty important factors would be modeled? What would be the effect?

From a ways back, there is limited modeling of compression only. So you have a point there.

Perhaps Holtzauge would come and lay out his formulae, C++ source or just the forms and of
course the data and how collected.

The dive test from real... I can only guess which one. Hard part is that none of the ones
I have read through contain all conditions to the point of duplicating with any flight sim.
So people do "tests" by whatever way they believe should, same as with climbs, etc.

If you mean thrust should be low efficience at low speeds, there was IIRC a Spit chart here
recently that did tell prop efficiency and while at zero speed it was 50%, at 100mph (160kph)
the efficience was 100% which frankly did surprise me!

You put too much power into a prop though and if it is automatic then what happens? The
engine tries to spin the prop faster than the control wants to allow so the control makes
the blade turn forward more and more to cause the revs to lower. Can you stall prop blades
by applying too much power at too low a speed?
The point of that being that nothing of these is so simple as put the pedal down and you go
kind of thinking. In a car you can see the tires smoke on a burnout but in AC you don't.

This thread can possibly be a very good one and narrow down the unknowns. Or the other way.

JG14_Josf
06-26-2007, 06:20 PM
The question here is: what's wrong with thrust, drag and energy modeling.

JG4_Helofly,

I am not on the list of people who you respond to anymore and that is fine.

Engine off tests (http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/t404/404testing.html)

Looking only at Spitfire and Fw190 development to narrow down the scale of data and looking only at the middle and two extremes:

Fw190A-4 - 89%
Fw180A-6 - 89%
Fw190A-8 - 90%

Spit VB - 84%
SpitVIII - 86%
Spit 25 - 86%

Engine on data:
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c60/PapaFly/PlaneData/600-0.jpg

A question that can be avoided - or answered is such:

Why does an increase of thrust destroy the zoom climb advantage of the Fw190A series aircraft?

M_Gunz
06-26-2007, 09:27 PM
A question that can be avoided - or answered is such:

Why does an increase of thrust destroy the zoom climb advantage of the Fw190A series aircraft?


Because at 600kph, ALL of those planes make NET THRUST (thrust is more than drag) and in
the zoom the plane with higher T/W will go higher given equal starting speeds.

If a sim plays any way different then it is wrong.

JG14_Josf
06-26-2007, 09:37 PM
the plane with higher T/W will go higher given equal starting speeds.

If a sim plays any way different then it is wrong.

Helofly,

If I respond to this troll then the troll will continue to end the discussion with stupid declarations of ignorance. What is your pleasure?

na85
06-26-2007, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A question that can be avoided - or answered is such:

Why does an increase of thrust destroy the zoom climb advantage of the Fw190A series aircraft?


Because at 600kph, ALL of those planes make NET THRUST (thrust is more than drag) and in
the zoom the plane with higher T/W will go higher given equal starting speeds.

If a sim plays any way different then it is wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

M_Gunz,

What about the case where one plane has higher drag than the other?

JG4_Helofly
06-27-2007, 02:53 AM
Josf, I appreciate that you tell us your ideas, but please don't call people trolls who have an other idea then you.
M_Gunz simply disagree with you. Is he a troll if he does not agree with you? A troll is someone who posts useless sh** in a threat.

You must accept other people opinions. And don't forget that you could be wrong. There are people who disagree with you and people who agree with you.

@ Tagert, as usual you are doing right in asking for the charts and numbers. I thought you would remember these documents.
Here is the one made by Holtzauge: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/416...161085435#4161085435 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/4161085435?r=4161085435#4161085435)

And this is the dive chart: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/360...191024184#2191024184 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/3601034184?r=2191024184#2191024184)

K_Freddie
06-27-2007, 05:43 AM
As far as I understand the games flight model.

Its a formula in which any aircrafts table of co-efficient data is plugged into. Resulting in your particular a/c performance.

So essentually we all fly with the same model, and the a/c models (data tables) have been refined over the years. Not perfect, but what is really prominent and most accurate, is the performance comparison between the planes.

This I've always felt is the most important aspect of the modelling, as we can only know what the performances were on paper and rely on old, sometimes inaccurate debriefs of WW2 combat pilots.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

JG14_Josf
06-27-2007, 07:25 AM
You must accept other people opinions.

JG4_Helofly,

Really? Then accept my opinion. I have stated a question that is another way of stating your question. The troll quoted my question. The troll then ignored my question. The troll then stated something stupid.

The stupid statement following my question didn't answer the question, at all, because the stupid statement is simply a stupid statement.

Here is my opinion that you must accept:

A troll will ignore questions that pertain to the topic. A troll will quote questions pertaining to the topic. A troll will then make a stupid statement after quoting the question that pertains to the topic in an effort to stupefy people trying to answer the question. Trolls are lonely and they are looking for company?

Note the last opinion that you must accept is another question.

How does this work? I must accept another person's opinion but you don't have to accept mine?

My opinion is backed up with a whole lot of evidence. The troll didn't answer my question that does lead to the answer to your question.


A question that can be avoided - or answered is such:

Why does an increase of thrust destroy the zoom climb advantage of the Fw190A series aircraft?

The power off tests show an advantage for the Fw190. The power on tests show an advantage for the Spitfire. Both tests are straight up tests that avoid any wing lift force. Both tests are decelerating maneuvers where the aircraft mass does not accelerate.

One test is done without engine power and the Fw190 has the advantage.

When thrust is added to the same type of vertical zoom test the Fw190 becomes relatively less able to decelerate at a slower rate.

Thrust to weight is not a factor in the first test since there is no thrust and the Fw190 goes slightly higher.

Add thrust (add more thrust for the Fw190 because the Fw190 adds more thrust) to the rate of deceleration in the vertical zoom climb and the plane adding less thrust decreases the rate of deceleration significantly more than the plane adding more thrust (Fw190).

I'll run that by you again:

In a vertical zoom climb the two WWII airplanes cannot accelerated upward at all. With their engines off those planes decelerated at almost the same rate:

Fw190A-8 = 90%
Spit 25 = 86%

That is the engine-off test, pure vertical, shot straight up. No acceleration going up whatsoever. Start out at the fastest speed and slowing down to a vertical stop.

Two things are important to note.

A. The Fw190 is smaller and cleaner in aerodynamic design (see Lendicer).
B. The Fw190 is denser by as much as 19% and therefore it takes more force to slow it down.

Fw190A-8 = 90%
SpitVIII = 86%

That makes sense. The actual difference in which plane slows down faster in the game makes sense to the actual difference in which one slows down sooner in reality. The actual rate of difference in the game is not confirmed by testing or formulation (to do so require accurate numbers for total drag force during the entire flight or actual testing of the actual aircraft).

If the test adds thrust to those vertical zoom climbs, unless much more thrust than weight is added, then both aircraft will continue to decelerate during the entire flight. If both aircraft do add much more thrust than weight, then, both aircraft will slow down from the high speed start to the speed where both planes reach a sustained climb rate going up vertically and then both planes will not accelerated going up at all. If both planes add much, much, more thrust than weight, then, both planes will accelerate up from the slow starting velocity. Do you understand this relationship (not being asked to any of the many trolls on this board who volunteer to be trolls on this board)?

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c60/PapaFly/PlaneData/600-0.jpg

The Fw190A-8 adds more thrust than the Spitfire MK VIII and it reaches a significantly lower altitude during the deceleration from high speed to slow speed going straight up.

How is that possible?

When Robert Shaw described an aircraft having full fuel and low fuel where the lower fueled plane reached a higher zoom climb he noted how the lower fueled aircraft zoomed higher because the average Specific Excess Power was higher during the zoom climb for the lighter loaded aircraft.

Specific Excess Power in simple terms is Power Available Power Required.

T/W D/W

If the plane can accelerate, then, the plane has more T/W and less D/W.

If the plane cannot accelerate, then, the plane has more D/W and less T/W.

The vertical zoom climb test shows that the Fw190 has less D/W than the Spitfire.

Like this:

------------------T/W----------D/W
Fw190----------- ? ------------ >
Spitfire---------- ? ------------ <

D/W
Fw180 > Spitfire

Even if Drag was the same (which it is not since the Fw190 is smaller and more aerodynamic) for both planes, then, that force is still divided by weight (Drag Loading).

Example:

Fw190 ------ x/W
Spitfire ------x/less W

The total force that is measurable as deceleration will be less for the Fw190 because there is more weight dividing up that force.

Fw190A-8 = 90%
SpitVIII = 86%

The game confirms that relationship for drag loading.

Everyone has heard of wing loading and power loading. Drag loading is the part that has people discomboobulated.

In abstract numbers (because the actual force of Drag during this flight test is very difficult to find accurately) the relationship can look like this:

Fw190 = T/W 10/18
Spitfire = T/W 11/15

Fw190 = T/W - .56
Spitfire = T/W - .73

Where .56 is measured as negative acceleration when total drag force is divided by weight for the Fw190 (16% more weight than the Spitfire).

Where T/W is zero because the engines are off and where the Spitfire is slowed down by a greater force (11) and where the Spitfire has less mass (density) so it is slowed down more by that greater force where the total negative acceleration is larger than the Fw190 @ .73

Here comes the interesting part that answers your question.

When T/W becomes a factor for the vertical zoom climb tests with engines on, then, those forces must be added to the negative force slowing those planes down.

Note: Gravity slows both planes down the same rate no matter what and that force of deceleration determines something called Energy Height (the same exact altitude both planes will reach if there is no atmosphere).

So the T/W force must be much greater for the Spitfire if the Spitfire is going to pass up the Fw190 during the same test going straight up only this time the engines are turned on.

If both planes reach the same exact percentage difference (this time they go higher because the engines remove more drag force if nothing else), then, the T/W increase for the Spitfire offsets the D/W decrease.

Like this:

Fw190 = T/18 10/18
Spitfire = T/15 11/15

Fw190 = .73 - .56
Spitfire = .56 - .73

Here the math dudes can find the values for T required to equal the same zoom climb percentage like this:

Fw190A-8 = 90%
SpitVIII = 86%

The game does not show (according to the tests linked) the same percentage difference in zoom climb. The Spitfire zooms much higher than the Fw190.

Fw190 = T/18 10/18
Spitfire = T/15 11/15

Fw190 = Much lower - .56
Spitfire = Much higher - .73

In fact the Fw190 produced much more thrust than the Spitfire. What must be calculated accurately in order to know which plane decelerates slower going straight up in a vertical zoom climb is total force in Newtons (not engine horsepower) forcing the object up (momentum is a force) and total force in Newtons (Pounds force will do) slowing both planes down during the entire flight from start to finish. Gravity is the same for both.

If the total force going up is not greater than the total force resisting the progress going up, then, both aircraft will not reach their theoretical Energy Height (the total force of gravity that is equal on both).

That is a fundamental understanding of what must be known. If neither plane can add more force lifting the plane higher than the pull of gravity, then, neither plane will reach the altitude possible if no air drag slowed either plane down.

Therefore the engine on scenario, going straight up, without adding wing lift, is nothing more than a reduction in drag force = no additional acceleration whatsoever.

In other words: Gravity will force each plane to decelerate at the same exact rate. Momentum will overcome that gravity force to the same exact altitude. Drag force will slow down the Spitfire faster making its altitude gain less (both planes will not reach their Energy Height). Propellers turning will move air mass from in front of the prop disc back behind the prop disc reducing the rate of deceleration (both planes will not reach their Energy Height and both planes will not accelerated, at all, during the vertical zoom climb).

When the engines are turned on and at full power the planes do not accelerate at all. The planes do not even reach a sustainable climb rate. Both planes decelerated from the beginning of the vertical flight path until both planes stop going up.

What happens at the prop disc?

Aircraft velocity is continuously decelerating. What happens to prop pitch?

If these questions are not answered, then, your question may remain obscured (with much, much, help from the trolls).

Now; you don't have to accept my opinion. You can ignore it. Use the force. Use the Hide Post button.

I don't have to edit either.

JG14_Josf
06-27-2007, 07:32 AM
Josf, I appreciate that you tell us your ideas, but please don't call people trolls who have an other idea then you.

I must add:

What are you calling me? I call a troll a troll because the troll acts line a troll not because the troll has other ideas than me. If the troll wishes to express his ideas in a fashion that doesn't amount to behaving like a troll, then, the troll can ignore my posts and stop quoting my posts as the troll responds to my posts with stupid arrangements of words.

I won't bother repeating the stupid arrangements of words like this:


Josf, I appreciate that you tell us your ideas, but please don't call people trolls who have an other idea then you.

That isn't stupid. That is merely inaccurate. I did not call anyone a troll because they have other ideas than me. I called someone a troll because they act like a troll guarding the bridge of information. No one can pass without paying the troll tax.

If you want me to stop expressing myself freely, then, I can stop responding to your posts so long as you stop responding to mine.

JG4_Helofly
06-27-2007, 07:39 AM
Josf, I respect you opinion, but you call people trolls when they say that you are wrong. Are you a troll if you say to someone that he is wrong?

It's amazing in this forum. It's absolutly impossible to discuss something without personal problems people have with each other.

Please go 100% back to topic.

JG14_Josf
06-27-2007, 08:24 AM
Josf, I respect you opinion, but you call people trolls when they say that you are wrong. Are you a troll if you say to someone that he is wrong?

How does that work? You repeat your inaccurate statement on this public forum that degrades me and now you ask me to be silent about your continued publications of your opinion concerning me defending against the trolls.

How does this work? You want me to get back on topic where I've spelled out the problem in a manner that can involve discussion but you don't discuss anything that I wrote concerning the topic, instead, you choose to focus your attention on my defense against the trolls.

What is good for you is not good for me. I get that part. Do you want to know why discussions do not happen on this forum?

How about this:


A question that can be avoided - or answered is such:

Why does an increase of thrust destroy the zoom climb advantage of the Fw190A series aircraft?

If you avoid the question and focus upon my behavior (in defense against a stupid troll), then, what happens to the discussion?

How does this work? Let me guess.

You agree with the following however you are not willing to discuss your agreement of the following:


Because at 600kph, ALL of those planes make NET THRUST (thrust is more than drag) and in
the zoom the plane with higher T/W will go higher given equal starting speeds.

If a sim plays any way different then it is wrong.

A discussion goes like this:


What about the case where one plane has higher drag than the other?

How does a discussion go exactly?

I ask a question.
Someone makes a stupid statement.
Someone else asks another question.

The Stupid statement is focused upon and the questions are ignored.

What is your question? Is your question being ignored? Are people focusing on stupid stuff instead of discussing the topic? Who is guilty of focusing on stupid stuff instead if discussing the topic exactly?

Question (to be ignored in favor of stupid stuff or discussed at your pleasure):


A question that can be avoided - or answered is such:

Why does an increase of thrust destroy the zoom climb advantage of the Fw190A series aircraft?

Stupid stuff:


Because at 600kph, ALL of those planes make NET THRUST (thrust is more than drag) and in
the zoom the plane with higher T/W will go higher given equal starting speeds.

If a sim plays any way different then it is wrong.

How can that, above, be anything but stupid? I'm not the only one seeing it. I'm less tolerant than others; and you blame me for my lack of tolerance after reading the last exchanges involving the poster I am identifying as a troll?

OK so let's drop the stupid stuff and concentrate on the facts no?

The larger and less aerodynamically slippery Spitfire VIII does not go as high with the engine off.
What is the thrust loading (T/W)?
What is the drag loading (D/W)?

If you do not have accurate numbers (Newtons or Pounds force) for either T/W and D/W, then, you do not know what is needed to know in order to know what should happen with the Spitfire VIII and the Fw190A-8.

What is known is what happens in the game.

With the engine on the Spitfire VIII goes higher.
With the engine off the Fw190 goes higher.

What is also known is what happened in history when a Spitfire IX was tested against an Fw190A-3.


When both aircraft were flying at high cruising speed and were pulled up into a climb from level flight, the Fw 190 had a slight advantage in the initial stages of the climb due to its better acceleration (Ps). The superiority was slightly increased when both aircraft were pulled up into the climb from a dive.

The Fw190A-3 in question was a de-rated version that was not flown at rated pressure except during 2 minute interval speed runs (according to the documentation).

The Spitfire IX in question (according to Eric Brown) was a Merlin 61 version which ran at 15lbs boost during the speed runs.

The point being that the British did test for zoom climb performance (not purely vertical) and they did so for a specific reason i.e. to see which plane performed better in reality.

I could be wrong, of course, but the earliest Spitfire IX (Used during the British zoom climb tests where the early Fw190 was superior) was probably comparable to the Spitfire III (the game version) as close as apples to apples as possible.

Fw190A-4 - 89%
Fw180A-6 - 89%
Fw190A-8 - 90%

Those are power off tests.

New questions:

If the game models less zoom climb performance for the early Fw190, then, shouldn't the Fw190A-8 zoom climb better than the Spitfire VIII?

What do the power off and power on vertical performance capabilities look like between the early P-47 and the latest P-47 in the game?

P-47D10 88%
P-47D27 88%
P-47D late 88%

If the later version gains a whole lot of performance when the engine is turned on due to its much greater engine power, then, engine power is a great advantage.

What is the T/W for the latest P-47?
What is the T/W for the Fw190A-8?
What is the T/W for the Spitfire VIII?

What is the thrust loading when measured as Newtons or Pounds force at 700 km/h going straight up?

What is the drag loading when measured as Newtons or Pounds force at 700 km/h going straight up with and without compression factored?

Note: If Thrust loading is less than Drag loading for the entire flight from 700 km/h to zero km/h, going straight up, then, the plane will decelerate more than 1 g during the flight up (the pilot feels lighter and the plane does not reach the theoretical energy height during the whole flight up). Ps is negative the whole flight.

The thrust loading increase of the plane reaching higher must offset the lower drag loading of the planes that climb higher with the engines off.

If the increase in altitude is great, then, the thrust loading increase must be great especially if the engine off superiority is due to a great difference in drag loading.

The Fw190 was small, more aerodynamic, and heavy compared to the Spitfire.

The P-47 was large, less aerodynamic, and heavy compared to the Spitfire.

At least one actual pilot figured out that the P-47 was the better zooming plane.

JG4_Helofly
06-27-2007, 08:50 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

I am stupid so explain me what is wrong with this answer:
"Because at 600kph, ALL of those planes make NET THRUST (thrust is more than drag) and in
the zoom the plane with higher T/W will go higher given equal starting speeds.

If a sim plays any way different then it is wrong."

Man, I will never open such a threat again http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

AKA_TAGERT
06-27-2007, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
@ Tagert, as usual you are doing right in asking for the charts and numbers.
What can I say..

It's an aerospace engineer's gift! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
I thought you would remember these documents.
Nope.. missed both of them


Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
Here is the one made by Holtzauge: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/416...161085435#4161085435 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/4161085435?r=4161085435#4161085435)
Cool thanks.. but after looking at that link I noticed there was allot of talk.. but very little data and no track file. Which brings me back to one of my original questions..

Why would you take Holzauge's results over Oleg's results? Do you have some real world data that you compared to and found that Holzaug's simulator (C++ calculations) got better results than Oleg's simulator (IL2)?


Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
And this is the dive chart: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/360...191024184#2191024184 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/3601034184?r=2191024184#2191024184)
Again, no track file.. At least JtD mentioned that he attempted to match the dive angle.. but in that very thread he noted that he does not have the original data anymore. Thus I would put that in the category of 'maybe' but not confirmed by a long shot.

Ratsack
06-27-2007, 09:24 AM
That went well, didn't it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

cheers,
Ratsack

JG4_Helofly
06-27-2007, 09:39 AM
What tells me that there is a problem is that JTD found a huge difference in dive performance. This was confirmed later by the Holtzauge with the C++ calculation which shows exactly what's wrong with the RL dive vs in-game dive.

We are talking about huge differences. JtD found this big difference by comparing in-game performance with RL performance. Then the same picture with the C++ programm. Can this only be a coincidence?

That's why I believe it.

AKA_TAGERT
06-27-2007, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
What tells me that there is a problem is that JTD found a huge difference in dive performance. This was confirmed later by the Holtzauge with the C++ calculation which shows exactly what's wrong with the RL dive vs in-game dive.
Well if that is what you want to belive.. I am just pointing out that neither of those tests provided any real world data to comp to or a copy of the trak file. Now JtD does great work! But there is still a chance that the test method was flawed. It would not be the first time that has happened. But we will never know because there is no link to the real world test report or his track file. As for Holtzauge's C++ code, we don't know that much about it, so I would list it as interesting, and a maybe, not far from proof that Holtzauge's code is right and Oleg's code is wrong.


Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
We are talking about huge differences.
Which should cause one to take a moment and consider the FACT that HUGE differences typically mean there was an error in the test method and not the code.


Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
JtD found this big difference by comparing in-game performance with RL performance.
So he says.. BUT.. there is no real world data listed and no track file provided to see how valid JtD's statment is.


Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
Then the same picture with the C++ programm.
So he says.. BUT.. there is no real world data listed and no track file provided to see how valid Holtzauge's statment is.


Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
Can this only be a coincidence?
Yes.


Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
That's why I believe it.
So, you take thier un-documented (read no real world data) un-supported (read no track file) word over Oleg's years of experance?

If so.. I have a big red bridge for sale in CA..

I don't have any paperwork proving it is mine..

but I do have a picture..

http://www.jstottphotography.com/2003/2003-09-03_-_usa/san_francisco/slides_l/dscn1859.jpg

Interested? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

M_Gunz
06-27-2007, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by na85:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A question that can be avoided - or answered is such:

Why does an increase of thrust destroy the zoom climb advantage of the Fw190A series aircraft?


Because at 600kph, ALL of those planes make NET THRUST (thrust is more than drag) and in
the zoom the plane with higher T/W will go higher given equal starting speeds.

If a sim plays any way different then it is wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

M_Gunz,

What about the case where one plane has higher drag than the other? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I see I should have put the word "net-" before T/W. My mistake. Higher net-thrust to weight
will go higher given equal starting speeds. My bad.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really it isn't simple to figure out at all and I think that aero types would rather speak
of excess thrust which to me at least is what's left over after drag is accounted for with
consideration given to prop and engine efficiency if the examples given mean anything.

I kind of wonder about people that will tell trained AE pros and not-beginning level students
in AE schools and the occasional degreed physicist they are full of it based on ONE QUOTE
from a WWII fighter pilot that has his own idea of why he could zoom a P-47 higher than
every German that tried to follow him and no doubt more than a few Allieds in mock combat.
He doesn't need to know WHY, just WHAT. In the time I spent in the military I ran across
a lot of the same; very good at what they do and have an "explanation" of how it works that
doesn't hold up but doesn't matter either when it comes to performing.

We have one military guy here that has maintained that .50 cal bullets don't reach their
peak speed until about 300m downrange. He uses the .50 so he must know the reality???

P-47 is great at transition. I don't know the critical AOA of the wing but the lift it
is capable of is huge. And when you can transition from level to vertical quicker and
cleaner than the guy behind you then you will start the vertical zoom with higher speed
and those who followed what Crumpp showed in the other thread know the value of that
even if under special marginal circumstances the faster one does not always go higher.

OTOH the tread can play political compromises and any decided results will be just as
compromised.

M_Gunz
06-27-2007, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by K_Freddie:
As far as I understand the games flight model.

Its a formula in which any aircrafts table of co-efficient data is plugged into. Resulting in your particular a/c performance.

So essentually we all fly with the same model, and the a/c models (data tables) have been refined over the years. Not perfect, but what is really prominent and most accurate, is the performance comparison between the planes.

This I've always felt is the most important aspect of the modelling, as we can only know what the performances were on paper and rely on old, sometimes inaccurate debriefs of WW2 combat pilots.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Oh great! Finally someone who's been inside the code has come out to talk!
There are SO MANY QUESTIONS I want to ask!

BBB_Hyperion
06-27-2007, 10:09 AM
Some notes



M=0.7 I have guessed the drag rise (right now it reassembles the P-51)

No Data


Does anyone have the Fw190D9 propeller efficiency chart Schpam posted a while back?

No Data not to mention different prop types


The prop efficiency data should have efficiency on the one axis and either speed, advance ratio or propeller speed coefficient Cs on the other axis. The exhaust thrust is usually presented with thrust on the one axis and altitude on the other. The drag rise would be nice to have too ( e.g a chart with Cdo on y-axis and mach up to about 0.8-0.9 on the x-axis).
No Drag Data

That are about the same Problems i had simulating just not enough Data available to have proofable conclusions. Further optaining correct testdata from the game is another issue.


A simple equation (no iteration needed) modeling an abrupt drag rise would not be perfect but would improve the simulation immensely. The same could be done to reduce prop efficieny at high speeds. Right now it looks like props in PF are exempt from mach effects.

That is the point i repeat for years high speed acceleration is off in the simulation starting at 0.65 mach drag increases too slowly when it is not deleted i said something similar years ago on this forum.

JG14_Josf
06-27-2007, 11:07 AM
I am stupid so explain me what is wrong with this answer:
"Because at 600kph, ALL of those planes make NET THRUST (thrust is more than drag) and in
the zoom the plane with higher T/W will go higher given equal starting speeds.

If a sim plays any way different then it is wrong."

Man, I will never open such a threat again

Helofly,

The moderator once told me to toughen up this is a rough forum (or some other wording meaning the same thing). You will open another thread or you won't at your pleasure. I can count your pledge as relatively irrelevant to the topic.

You are not stupid in my view. Stupid is pretending to be smart and ignoring ignorance. Ignorance is everyone's first step toward gaining knowledge. You may be ignorant so welcome to the club.

Max (bless his heart) responded to the quote in question so that can be ignored (thank God).

If you want to move from ignorance to something resembling knowledge, then, you must answer good questions with accurate answers.

I can offer the questions I am currently trying to answer myself (because I am also ignorant concerning these good questions).

A. Two exactly the same WWII fighter planes go straight up from 600 km/h where one is half the mass of the other plane (exactly the same fighter plane' is a calculation, not a fact, and the only variable is mass or weight).
B. Which plane goes higher flying through air mass?

The answer is definitely the heavier plane and the amount of difference in altitude gain is irrelevant to my question. The higher zooming plane is the higher mass plane (all else being equal).

That is true because of this:

D/W

Where Drag is the same for both planes

Where W is twice for one plane

Where W is half for one plane.

If you find reason to question the above for any reason, then, moving on is not a good idea.

What is your pleasure?

M_Gunz
06-27-2007, 11:25 AM
When you have more thrust than you have drag then you have net thrust. T - D > 0, in
english; thrust minus drag is more than zero.

So instead of dividing Drag by Weight the reality is Thrust minus Drag as a total divided by Weight.

The Weight is only watering down the total of Thrust minus Drag.

In a situation where Drag is more than Thrust, you have Net Drag and Weight is your friend.

In any zoom to zero speed from any speed these planes could go up, the greatest part of the
time will be spent with Thrust more than Drag for Net Thrust and extra weight is BAD.

AKA_TAGERT
06-27-2007, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K_Freddie:
As far as I understand the games flight model.

Its a formula in which any aircrafts table of co-efficient data is plugged into. Resulting in your particular a/c performance.

So essentually we all fly with the same model, and the a/c models (data tables) have been refined over the years. Not perfect, but what is really prominent and most accurate, is the performance comparison between the planes.

This I've always felt is the most important aspect of the modelling, as we can only know what the performances were on paper and rely on old, sometimes inaccurate debriefs of WW2 combat pilots.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Oh great! Finally someone who's been inside the code has come out to talk!
There are SO MANY QUESTIONS I want to ask! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I think your seeing things MAX..

In that he did not say he worked on the code..

He said "As far as I understand"

Not sure what that means to you.. but to me he is saying

"that is the way he understands it to work"..

Not to be confused with

"that is the way it works"..

JG4_Helofly
06-27-2007, 11:30 AM
Ok Josf then I am ignorant.
If I understand you correctly your question is: Is Weight more important than thrust in a zoom climb. Is the + in energy the havier plane has, more important to gain altitude in a zoom climb then the + in t/w the leighter aircraft has.

M_Gunz answered that the plane with the better t/w will zoom higher. You claim the opposite. I still wait for an explanation why M_Gunz is a troll in your opinion.

At the moment I don't know who is right and who is wrong or if it depends on speed.
I would say that at low speed, for exemple just above the minimum speed for the heavy plane the lighter plane would zoom higher. At very high speed the havier plane could zoom higher, but that's just my theorie.

@ Target, I trust some people because I know they are competent. As long as you can't proove that his test was wrong I will believe that planes accelerate too good in il2. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

AKA_TAGERT
06-27-2007, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
@ Target, I trust some people because I know they are competent. As long as you can't proove that his test was wrong I will believe that planes accelerate too good in il2. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif So.. Oleg is incompetent and everyone else knows exactally what they are doing?

Huh..

Well I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

JG4_Helofly
06-27-2007, 11:41 AM
Agree or disagree with what you want. Oleg himself said that only about 10% of all RL factors are taken into consideration. Many things are not modeled. And the sim is by far not perfect.

na85
06-27-2007, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
Ok Josf then I am ignorant.
If I understand you correctly your question is: Is Weight more important than thrust in a zoom climb. Is the + in energy the havier plane has, more important to gain altitude in a zoom climb then the + in t/w the leighter aircraft has.

M_Gunz answered that the plane with the better t/w will zoom higher. You claim the opposite. I still wait for an explanation why M_Gunz is a troll in your opinion.

At the moment I don't know who is right and who is wrong or if it depends on speed.
I would say that at low speed, for exemple just above the minimum speed for the heavy plane the lighter plane would zoom higher. At very high speed the havier plane could zoom higher, but that's just my theorie.

At very low speed, it's not really a zoom climb, then, is it?

There is a huge difference between a sustained climb and a zoom climb. You can't zoom climb at "just above minimum speed," but you can certainly attempt a sustained climb

M_Gunz
06-27-2007, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
In that he did not say he worked on the code..

He said "As far as I understand"

Thanks for making a distinction that I already understood. In my many years of writing
software I have also met many who said exactly that about projects they were part of, but
then that's how very large code with multiple authors is. I for one have had to say that.
Not talking about any small tools, etc.

BUT since my reply to him was made in such DEEP SARCASM, I figured that most anyone would
understand. I wasn't counting on the communications-handicapped misinterpreting the ENTIRE
DIRECTION of that reply which considering this is THE ZOO was a major mistake on my part.

AKA_TAGERT
06-27-2007, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
Agree or disagree with what you want.
Hence me poiting out we will have to agree to disagree.

In that I personally have trouble BELIVING something that does not provide a link to the real world data let alone the ingame test that they determined does not match the real world data. In that most of the time that someone has provided those two things it turned out to be an error in the test method and not the sim.


Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
Oleg himself said that only about 10% of all RL factors are taken into consideration. Many things are not modeled.
Never seen that quote before.. but Ill take your word for it.. but don't fool yourself into thinking Holtzauge's code is taking into account more than 10% of ALL RL factors either.


Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
And the sim is by far not perfect.
Hence the name simulation

AKA_TAGERT
06-27-2007, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
In that he did not say he worked on the code..

He said "As far as I understand"

Thanks for making a distinction that I already understood. In my many years of writing
software I have also met many who said exactly that about projects they were part of, but
then that's how very large code with multiple authors is. I for one have had to say that.
Not talking about any small tools, etc.

BUT since my reply to him was made in such DEEP SARCASM, I figured that most anyone would
understand. I wasn't counting on the communications-handicapped misinterpreting the ENTIRE
DIRECTION of that reply which considering this is THE ZOO was a major mistake on my part. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Sure.. sure.. sure.. you keep tellin yourself that

M_Gunz
06-27-2007, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
Agree or disagree with what you want. Oleg himself said that only about 10% of all RL factors are taken into consideration. Many things are not modeled. And the sim is by far not perfect.

He also said that they have all the major factors in and the engine flies very close to real.

I looked at his resume and he has been a test pilot as well as an AE.
Don't you think that large errors would be obvious to him?

JG4_Helofly
06-27-2007, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
Agree or disagree with what you want. Oleg himself said that only about 10% of all RL factors are taken into consideration. Many things are not modeled. And the sim is by far not perfect.

He also said that they have all the major factors in and the engine flies very close to real.

I looked at his resume and he has been a test pilot as well as an AE.
Don't you think that large errors would be obvious to him? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe there are some important factors which are still not modeled. I read several test pilot reports and found that at a certain altitude it's not possible to go faster. In IL2 the plane will accelerate until you explode.
I might be wrong but at the moment I thing that there is something wrong.

M_Gunz
06-27-2007, 12:29 PM
Please explain and where it comes to the part about above 10km alt, it is true that the IL2
atmosphere is not real above 10km in some way(s) not explained.

AKA_TAGERT
06-27-2007, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Please explain and where it comes to the part about above 10km alt, it is true that the IL2 atmosphere is not real above 10km in some way(s) not explained.
That is the alt where the std atm. temp modling changes

http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Cam/TP13312-2/images/atmosphere1.gif

My guess is Oleg just assumes that temp slope is the same above 10km as it is below 10km.

JG14_Josf
06-27-2007, 12:49 PM
Ok Josf then I am ignorant.
If I understand you correctly your question is: Is Weight more important than thrust in a zoom climb. Is the + in energy the havier plane has, more important to gain altitude in a zoom climb then the + in t/w the leighter aircraft has.

M_Gunz answered that the plane with the better t/w will zoom higher. You claim the opposite. I still wait for an explanation why M_Gunz is a troll in your opinion.

At the moment I don't know who is right and who is wrong or if it depends on speed.
I would say that at low speed, for exemple just above the minimum speed for the heavy plane the lighter plane would zoom higher. At very high speed the havier plane could zoom higher, but that's just my theorie.

Helofly,

You contradict yourself. Do you want to stick to the topic or do you want to accuse me of avoiding your questions concerning why someone acts like a troll and therefore I call them on their troll behavior? Remember: The world didn't start this morning.

To suggest that I am guilty of a false accusation of someone being a forum troll due to the trolls own troll actions can work if the past vanishes, otherwise, that subject can be inspected for accurate validity. I am guilty of this charge when the past is conveniently ignored. So what?

I will move back to the subject of physics.

Thrust is affected by changes in mass.

Drag is affected by changes in mass.

Does the change in mass effect Thrust and Drag to the same proportion?

Do you see the relevance of my question above in the context of the current discussion (such as it is)?

Here is my question expressed as math:

T-D/W

T/W D/W

Where T is Total Force of Thrust at any specific time (time is frozen for inspection of the force at that specific time) during a specific flight condition.

Where D is Total Force of Drag at any specific time (time is frozen for inspection of the force at that specific time) during a specific flight condition.

Where T and D is measured as force in Newtons or Pounds force.

Where W is weight measured as pounds or kilograms relative to earth's gravity (mass).

Where the formula arrives at a net Force to be used in finding a net rate of acceleration potential for that object a that time in that condition of flight.

Example:

The plane will decelerate at a known rate of feet per second per second or meters per second per second because the formula accurately identifies the net Forces involved.

The later is (T/W D/W):
Changes in W does not affect T to the same proportion as W affects Drag

The former (T-D/W) is:
Changes in W affects thrust and drag at the same rate or proportion.

In other words:

A.
The same exact WWII fighter plane going straight up from 600 km/h will reduce thrust power and reduce drag power at the same exact rate when mass and only mass is doubled.

B.
The same exact WWII fighter plane going straight up from 600 km/h will reduce thrust power at a rate that is not the same as the reduction in drag power caused by the same doubling of mass.

Example:

WWII fighter plane at half weight:

A. WWII fighter plane at half weight:
t-d/w
Where thrust force is x
Where drag force is y
Where total thrust is divided by w to arrive at total thrust force
Where total drag is divided by w to arrive at total drag force

B. WWII fighter plane is twice weight:
t-d/w2
Where thrust force is x
Where drag force is y
Where total thrust is divided by w to arrive at total thrust force
Where total drag is divided by w to arrive at total drag force

Above suggests that that two WWII fighter plane going straight up from 600 km/h where one exact copy (half the mass) of the other exact copy (twice the mass) will divide the total force of thrust and the total force of drag by the same factor of weight at the same rate of division.

In other words: The total force of thrust power will divide that thrust power at the same rate that the total drag power is divided due to a doubling of weight.

Note: The effect of an increase of weight on total drag force is a reduction in the rate of deceleration caused by air mass resisting the movement of the airplane. That rate of deceleration is specific to changes in airspeed, where, the rate of drag force increases with air speed. Where drag force is greatest at high speed and lowest at low speed.

Note: The effect of an increase of weight on total thrust force is a decrease in the rate of air mass (perhaps) being thrust from the front of the prop disc to the back of the prop disc. The effect of an increase in weight is a change in the strain between the prop disc and the aircraft mass through the prop shaft.

How, I ask, is the rate of change in force of drag the same as the rate of change in force of thrust due to increases in weight? How can the force of thrust be affected in the same manner by changes in weight as the force of drag?

How about a link to a specific application of aerodynamic study?

What is your pleasure now?

Will you concentrate on my behavior relative to the trolls that frequent this forum or will you concentrate on the subject matter concerning the question you ask?

How about a very simple question:

Why does adding more thrust force to the Fw190 in the game reduce the advantage in vertical altitude gains compared to adding less thrust force for the Spitfire?

In other words: The game gives the un-powered advantage in vertical zoom climb to the Fw190 and the game takes that advantage away when the Fw190 is producing more thrust than the Spitfire. Why?

If the answer is that the Spitfire is modeled with a higher power to weight ratio than the Fw190, then, the answer suggests that thrust is used to lift the weight and that is not true.

To see why that is not true may involve a careful look at the two equations being communicated above:

T-D/W

And

T/W D/W

One describes one thing. The other describes something else.

Note: Thrust for rockets measures the mass of matter thrust on a specific vector. Thrust for jets and props measure the mass of matter thrust on a specific vector too. Force for all three can be measured as force i.e. Newtons or Pounds force.

Net force can be measured as acceleration i.e. feet per second per second and that rate is vector specific.

How about an easy observation:

Without accurate measurements for total drag force and total thrust force for every velocity and flight condition (even the very simple ballistic flight condition during a vertical zoom climb) there can be no accurate prediction of performance.

Kettenhunde
06-27-2007, 02:06 PM
M=0.7 I have guessed the drag rise (right now it reassembles the P-51)


You can easily estimate compressiblity drag rise from the following formula. Now the actual equations to solve it are far beyond these forums. In fact engineers could not solve them before the 1970's when sufficient computing power became available.

This formula is derived from empirically by closely examining test data up to Mach .95. It is a standard use formula used for just this purpose, SWAG'in drag rise. Probably not a good idea to use it above mach .95 though.

%IncCD = M^2/# engines + M^2/ 10*# engines

So in a single engine aircraft at Mach .7, the drag rise due to compressibility would be:

.7^2/1 + .7^2/10 = 53.9% rise in CD

At Mach .85

.85^2/1 + .85^2 / 10 = 79.475% increase in CD

Don't worry about what Mach number to begin applying drag rise and compressibility effects. Nobody is agreement in the real world either. Anytime after about Mach .3 is acceptable.

All the best,

Crumpp

zugfuhrer
06-27-2007, 02:28 PM
There are some strange things by the flight modelling.

Like a/c A climbs to a much higher alt with idle throttle than a/c B with the same alt and speed, but if you do the same on level flight a/c A brakes much better than a/c B.
It seems like the programming team cant get it right or if they deliberatly want to do a/c A better, to climb away and brake out of dogfight situation.

I have mailed this and many other details to ..1c.ru but never got any answer.

M_Gunz
06-27-2007, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
%IncCD = M^2/# engines + M^2/ 10*# engines

So in a single engine aircraft at Mach .7, the drag rise due to compressibility would be:

.7^2/1 + .7^2/10 = 53.9% rise in CD

At Mach .85

.85^2/1 + .85^2 / 10 = 79.475% increase in CD

Don't worry about what Mach number to begin applying drag rise and compressibility effects. Nobody is agreement in the real world either. Anytime after about Mach .3 is acceptable.

All the best,

Crumpp

Is that good for props, even turboprops or just for jets with jet intakes as opposed to props?

Kettenhunde
06-27-2007, 03:13 PM
Is that good for props, even turboprops or just for jets with jet intakes as opposed to props?


It is good for all aircraft at mach.

All the best,

Crumpp

M_Gunz
06-27-2007, 03:59 PM
Cool!

M_Gunz
06-27-2007, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
My guess is Oleg just assumes that temp slope is the same above 10km as it is below 10km.

I think you mean the code goes straight line and not that Oleg doesn't know atmosphere.

From the short statement we got that seems the most likely. A conditional on height > 11km
to return a set value instead of scaling would have it "correct" clear up to 20km.

10km is wayyyy beyond needs of the original sim as we know but that was before FB. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

M_Gunz
06-27-2007, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Thrust is affected by changes in mass.

Drag is affected by changes in mass.

Not bloody at all! T/W and D/W change with changes in mass, and BTW mass is NOT weight.
Weight is mass under acceleration which is why the slugs conversion is used.

Go tell your airplane flying brother that if he just loads an extra 500 lbs in his plane that
he will be able to zoom-climb higher but not sustained-climb faster and then say it only works
if he is zoom-climbing vertical.


Does the change in mass effect Thrust and Drag to the same proportion?

It doesn't. T/W and D/W changes. T and D do not.



T-D/W

By the "formula", the ratio of drag to weight is subtracted from thrust. What reality does that
describe? The terms don't match so it's not physics at all but alphabet fantasy.


T/W D/W


These terms do match, the ratio of thrust to weight minus the ratio of drag to weight so they can
be worked with without violating physics.

Will thrust to weight change at the same rate as drag to weight if you double the weight?
The only time that will be true is when thrust equals drag.

If thrust is more than drag, increasing the weight decreases D/W more than it does T/W.
If drag is more then it works the opposite.

At speeds less than max speed for the instantaneous alt, thrust at full power is more than drag.
As the plane slows down in the zoom, thrust becomes more and more than drag.

HOWEVER the answer is more than (T-D)/W which ONLY shows ratio of net-thrust-minus-drag to weight.

There is more if you want to say how the motion is affected.

Here is the whole form:



How high should my plane zoom????

Characteristics of our theoretical aircraft:

Weight 9000lbs
Thrust in lbs = 1000lbs
Drag in lbs = 500

Zoom climb from 300mph to Vy at a 45 degree angle:

300mph = 441fps
Zoom Angle 45 degrees
Vy = 150mph = 220.5fps

Zoom height:

Sum the forces on the flight path -

9000lbs * sin 45 = 6364lbs
1000lbs 500lbs 6364lbs = -5864lbs --- when direction of forces is up, - means down

a = F/m

m = 9000lbs/32.2 = 279.5 lb-s^2/ft
a= 5864lb/279.5lb-s^2/ft
a = 20.98 ft/s^2

s = (V1^2 V2^2 ) / 2a

s = (441^2 220.5^2)/(2 * 20.98ft/s^2) = 3476.18 ft

3476.18 ft * sin 45 = 2458 ft


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking at acceleration only and using anything like real numbers for WWII prop fighters,
no thrust as a large part or more of weight, etc, we see that adding mass increases the
Force total in the downward direction POUND FOR POUND. And that total gets divided by
Slugs which is the weight divided by 32.2. You don't do that then you get acceleration,
your terms will be wrong, your physics will fail.

Thrust and Drag are not the only forces at work, there is also the Weight of the plane in
gravity pulling down as a FORCE. The weight counts full as above.
And what about the factor of mass, the higher kinetic energy of the heavier plane moving
at the same speed? That is the m part of a = f/m, and it is measured in Slugs.

So with acceleration being how fast the plane is slowing down (force total being negative),
adding mass makes the force total stronger going down and that gets divided by weight/32.2
as ratio of force to mass to give acceleration. The extra force downward is always 32.2
times the extra Slugs it gets divided by and always makes Acceleration a larger negative
value -- meaning the plane slows down faster when all you do is add weight.

You can play around with terms to show this and that but if you IGNORE whole steps then
you are not going to get a real answer.

AKA_TAGERT
06-27-2007, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
My guess is Oleg just assumes that temp slope is the same above 10km as it is below 10km.

I think you mean the code goes straight line and not that Oleg doesn't know atmosphere.

From the short statement we got that seems the most likely. A conditional on height > 11km
to return a set value instead of scaling would have it "correct" clear up to 20km.

10km is wayyyy beyond needs of the original sim as we know but that was before FB. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactally..

And fits what Oleg said years ago with regards to high altitude modling is fudged.. but I am sure there is more to it than that.. this is just one example.

Cajun76
06-28-2007, 12:51 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Please explain and where it comes to the part about above 10km alt, it is true that the IL2 atmosphere is not real above 10km in some way(s) not explained.
That is the alt where the std atm. temp modling changes

http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Cam/TP13312-2/images/atmosphere1.gif

My guess is Oleg just assumes that temp slope is the same above 10km as it is below 10km. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From what I remember from the discussions, (FWIRFTD? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

the pressure is modeled linearly after 10k, instead of falling off accurately. Some quick calcs show that from 0 to 100,000 ft the pressure in psis falls off like this:

4.6
3.3
2.4
1.7 <- After this, the alt is modeled as a straight line, not a curve, AFAIK.
1.0
0.7
.35
.24
.15
.10

However, the curve is much less steep after this point, so not too bad a compromise, considering the original intent of the sim.

Even at just a mere 800m above SL in the sim, my glideslope and flair on landing must be lees steep than at 0m. Not that I had to run from a burning wreck that had collapsed its landing gear to learn that or anything.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

BBB_Hyperion
06-28-2007, 01:30 AM
Tagert isn't that a ISA Chart ? IIRC Oleg said they modeled each mapregion after local density data therefore Crimea should be used for testing cause it is close to ISA and has a high alt model.

Maybe someone can enlighten us with some regional day ,night data for 1 year for custom Temp Distribution in crimea region.

AKA_TAGERT
06-28-2007, 07:12 AM
Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Tagert isn't that a ISA Chart ?
As in std atm? than yes.


Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
IIRC Oleg said they modeled each mapregion after local density data therefore Crimea should be used for testing cause it is close to ISA and has a high alt model.
That is the way I understand it too.


Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Maybe someone can enlighten us with some regional day ,night data for 1 year for custom Temp Distribution in crimea region.
Alot of work was done in the past 30 or so years to come up with regional and seasonal std atm values. So, there may be something out there for Crima.

JG4_Helofly
06-28-2007, 08:21 AM
Maybe some RL pilots can help here. What happens if a 190 dives with a 45? angle from 10000m with full power. Will the plane:
A. loose rudders and finaly explode or
B. will it slow down when it reaches low altitude.

Maybe Crumpp can help.

P.S If you read this JtD, could you tell us what your RL datas are about the dive acceleration of the p 47

M_Gunz
06-28-2007, 09:02 AM
What is Vne for different model FW's?
I'd have a hard time believing that any model 190 could not exceeed Vne in a 45 deg dive
from even much lower than 10km alt!

JG14_Josf
06-28-2007, 09:06 AM
Helofly,

Did you understand my question concerning the relationship between drag, thrust, and mass?

Here is the question:


Does the change in mass effect Thrust and Drag to the same proportion?

Here is the answer (without all the troll behavior):


It doesn't.

Do you understand that changes in weight do not change the rate of acceleration caused by air resistance in the same proportion as changes in weight effect the rate of acceleration caused by prop thrust? The proportion isn't even remotely the same.

Going back to the simplest flight condition imaginable (the vertical zoom climb up or down doesn't matter) this can be seen as true with ease.

Going up straight (or down straight) eliminates any need to make any reference to lift force produced by the wings (even though wings do produce drag force) and that leaves four forces left to consider:

A. Thrust forcing the plane up
B. Drag is an opposing force that is taken away from the plane going up
C. Momentum is mass times velocity forcing the plane up
D. Gravity is a constant rate of acceleration opposing the plane going up

Thrust and Drag can be seen as a total force added up from the moment the plane starts on the runway to the moment the plane stops on the runway and Thrust will be greater than Drag or the plane won't move forward.

Cut out from the entire flight a section of the flight that concerns only the straight up zoom climb from 700 km/h hour to zero km/h and what do you get?

Thrust must be less than Drag for that portion of the flight if the plane decelerates at a rate that is faster than gravitational acceleration.

Do you understand this part? Is this easy to see?

Edit: This part is easy to see if you can feel it. A plane that is decelerating slightly faster than gravitational acceleration will make the person feel lighter very much like the feeling when a fast elevator begins slowing down. Another way to see this can be a look at a g meter during the flight. If the g meter isn't measuring 1 g, then, the rate of deceleration isn't exactly equal to gravitational acceleration. If the g meter reads 1.1 g, then, the aircraft is adding energy. If the g meter reads .09 g during the zoom climb up, then, the plane is decelerating faster than the rate of gravitational acceleration and the plane is losing total energy.

If, for example, the aircraft decelerated from 700 km/h to 0 km/h going straight up at exactly the rate of gravitational deceleration, then, the aircraft would reach the exact altitude the same object would reach shooting up in a vacuum (no air resistance, no thrust, only momentum).

If the total amount of thrust force equaled exactly the total amount of drag force during that vertical shot upward from 700 km/h to 0 km/h, then, both forces would total the same amount of force for that distance of travel through air resistance and the plane would reach what is known as the theoretical energy height.

Like this:

T D = 0

If the aircraft does not reach that theoretical energy height, then, total Drag force is greater than total Thrust force for that entire distance.

Think in terms of three experiments.

Experiment A:
The aircraft is shot up in a vacuum from 700 km/h to 0 km/h

Experiment B:
The aircraft is shot up through air with no engine thrust from 700 km/h to 0 km/h

Experiment C:
The aircraft is shot up through air with engine thrust from 700 km/h to 0 km/h

Energy Height is experiment A and that height will most certainly be higher than Experiment B for obvious reasons.

Does experiment C reach the same height as Experiment A?

If the answer is yes: Experiment C (engine on) reaches the exact same height as Experiment A, then, the total amount of thrust force is exactly equal to the total amount of drag force during that distance of travel through air mass.

Is that simple enough? Do you see this as true?

Now take the same plane and double the weight.

Experiment A remains the same altitude (no air resistance and the same gravitational deceleration).

Experiment B is no longer the same altitude due to an increase in momentum and a corresponding decrease in the rate of deceleration caused by air resistance.

Experiment C is no longer the same unless the increase in mass effects the rate of acceleration/deceleration the same amount due to the force of Drag and the force of Thrust in the same exact manner during this test flight where, again, the total force of Drag and the total force of thrust on the aircraft is again exactly equal and the plane reaches the same altitude as if no air resistance slowed the plane down from reaching the theoretical energy height.

In the above case the increase in mass while thrust remains the same is a reduction in the ratio of thrust to weight for the higher mass plane.

Now do the experiment in a way that keeps the thrust to weight ratio the same for both planes shooting up from 700 km/h to 0 km/h.

Where mass is doubled on one plane and thrust is increased on that plane so as to match the thrust to weight ratio of the same exact plane at half the weight.

Now things are getting a bit more complicated.

Return to the test in a vacuum.

Momentum only carries all objects to the same altitude (brick and feather).

Return to the zoom climb through air mass (identical planes where one plane is twice the weight of the other plane).

If the airplane is going to reach as high as it can if no air resistance slows it down, then, thrust must equal drag as a total and keep in mind that drag force at 700 km/h is extremely high (how fast is the air speed during the most severe hurricane?) and just before 0 km/h when the aircraft stops the force of drag is almost nil. Keep in mind how thrust (lift force crated by propeller blades) is much less than Drag force at 700 km/h and keep in mind that lift force for a WWII fighter plane at 0 km/h pointing straight up isn't enough to lift the plane one inch.

Kettenhunde
06-28-2007, 03:04 PM
What is Vne for different model FW's?
I'd have a hard time believing that any model 190 could not exceeed Vne in a 45 deg dive
from even much lower than 10km alt!


Depends on the altitude. I can post the dive limits found in several Flugzeug-Handbuchs for you.

It's 750kphIAS at lower altitudes.

If exceeded the elevator would lock up on the Focke Wulf. The flosse could be used to recover but had poor longitudinal stability at this velocity. A pilot better be very careful as it was extremely effective and could over load the airframe very quickly.

A number of anecdotes reporting FW190's either continuing to dive straight into the ground or suddenly disintegrating in flight confirm the Luftwaffe order.

In spite of claims to the contrary, q-limits are hard and fast limits. The also require definitive design changes in order to be raised.

Mach limits are the main consideration in our high altitude dive performance due to compressibility. Q-limits or flutter limits are the main determining factor our low altitude dive performance. In general dive limitations are set right at the boundary we run risk of damage to the airframe. Just past this is the point we run risk of destruction and that very quickly turns to the point of certain destruction.

All the best,

Crumpp

M_Gunz
06-28-2007, 10:50 PM
I for one am very impressed. Never seen a Josf post that holds up so well before!
Kudos for the post Josf! I wish all yours would be this tight!


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
In the above case the increase in mass while thrust remains the same is a reduction in the ratio of thrust to weight for the higher mass plane.

The second word thrust in that sentence should be (thrust - drag). The ratio of excess thrust
to weight is what applies. And of course if/while that value is negative, extra weight is
going to help.


Now do the experiment in a way that keeps the thrust to weight ratio the same for both planes shooting up from 700 km/h to 0 km/h.

Where mass is doubled on one plane and thrust is increased on that plane so as to match the thrust to weight ratio of the same exact plane at half the weight.

Now things are getting a bit more complicated.

Return to the test in a vacuum.

Momentum only carries all objects to the same altitude (brick and feather).

Return to the zoom climb through air mass (identical planes where one plane is twice the weight of the other plane).

If the airplane is going to reach as high as it can if no air resistance slows it down, then, thrust must equal drag as a total and keep in mind that drag force at 700 km/h is extremely high (how fast is the air speed during the most severe hurricane?) and just before 0 km/h when the aircraft stops the force of drag is almost nil. Keep in mind how thrust (lift force crated by propeller blades) is much less than Drag force at 700 km/h and keep in mind that lift force for a WWII fighter plane at 0 km/h pointing straight up isn't enough to lift the plane one inch.

That last part where thrust is much less than drag at 700kph --- 700kph is like 434mph.
So the plane you are using must be slower TAS at the alt being checked at than 700kph.
Down low, this is true of all the props I know of so down low it's no big deal.

Acceleration is not distance/height though. When the plane is at highest speed, 700kph being
194 m/s, losing 9.81 or so (say 15 just for the H of it and it's still not large loss) m/s does
not scrub distance per second (speed) by much at all compared to the 194 m/s.
The plane will be slowing down the most per second true but the distance covered per is large
compared to when the plane is moving slower but losing speed slower.
The answer is back in the motion equations, the top term of start velocity squared minus end
velocity squared.

So you have RSJ who pulls up hard into a vertical spiral and the other trying to follow.
Does the action of pulling the spiral force drag of both planes to be higher than thrust?
If so, I think that the heavier plane will go higher because of the extra drag and not
because of weight effects on zoom alone.

Perhaps Herr Crumpp could check that out, it's just an idea and I haven't run it through the
form at all because it's late and I'm feeling pretty beat.

Also I thought I just heard a horn of the apocalypse or something.....

M_Gunz
06-28-2007, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What is Vne for different model FW's?
I'd have a hard time believing that any model 190 could not exceeed Vne in a 45 deg dive
from even much lower than 10km alt!


Depends on the altitude. I can post the dive limits found in several Flugzeug-Handbuchs for you.

It's 750kphIAS at lower altitudes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you.


If exceeded the elevator would lock up on the Focke Wulf. The flosse could be used to recover but had poor longitudinal stability at this velocity. A pilot better be very careful as it was extremely effective and could over load the airframe very quickly.

Flosse meaning trim or elevator trim?
Is English your second language? If so, it explains much to me.


A number of anecdotes reporting FW190's either continuing to dive straight into the ground or suddenly disintegrating in flight confirm the Luftwaffe order.

In spite of claims to the contrary, q-limits are hard and fast limits. The also require definitive design changes in order to be raised.

Mach limits are the main consideration in our high altitude dive performance due to compressibility. Q-limits or flutter limits are the main determining factor our low altitude dive performance. In general dive limitations are set right at the boundary we run risk of damage to the airframe. Just past this is the point we run risk of destruction and that very quickly turns to the point of certain destruction.

All the best,

Crumpp

We know the sim does run on shortcuts or would either be a slideshow or not so pretty at all.
I am thinking that the limits like flutter may not be counted or perhaps we just have safety
margins of the best and new flawlessly built machines. I can certainly exceed the 750kph
down low! And I can intuit that 750 + 10% speed puts way more than even 21% more stress on
the airframe (1.1^2 - 1) from compression. Sorry, I'm too tired to use your compression SWAG
but more *is* more and I am guilty of not saying how much more, even ballpark.

Kettenhunde
06-29-2007, 08:37 AM
So you have RSJ who pulls up hard into a vertical spiral and the other trying to follow.
Does the action of pulling the spiral force drag of both planes to be higher than thrust?
If so, I think that the heavier plane will go higher because of the extra drag and not
because of weight effects on zoom alone.


If you add a turning element to the equation, the heavier aircraft is going to have more drag. It has a higher weight, weight is tied to lift production and higher lift required means more drag due to lift.

In the climb the only force that is not a braking force is thrust.

Flosse is the term for the elevator trim mechanism. It is not a flying tail but it works in a similar fashion, the entire horizontal stabilizer shifts to provide trim forces on the FW190 and Bf-109.

All the best,

Crumpp

JG14_Josf
06-29-2007, 08:42 AM
I for one am very impressed. Never seen a Josf post that holds up so well before!
Kudos for the post Josf! I wish all yours would be this tight!

Max,

Your compliment is a fine thing. Thanks. I don't know what you mean by it. That is just me. My guess is that you think that my posts are normally not tight and now for some reason my post is tight.

Enough of that as you go on to comment on my post and where, according to you, there needs to be an interpretation (perhaps you are tightening things up).

Rather than cut and past my words reinterpreted as if they needed reinterpretation I will regain control of what I actually did express with words only this time I will use different words and I write, again, to the topic starter who may now be inclined to discredit my earlier challenge to view the vertical zoom climb problem.

The problem can be expressed with the Tests (http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/t404/404testing.html) that are already available:

Fw190A-4 - 89%
Fw180A-6 - 89%
Fw190A-8 - 90%

Spit VB - 84%
SpitVIII - 86%
Spit 25 - 86%

Focus can apply to these two engine off vertical zoom climb tests:

SpitVIII 86%
Fw190A-8 90%

Clearly the Fw190A-8 in the game can out-zoom the SpitVIII in the game when no engine thrust is added to a vertical zoom climb test. To be clearer the following is cut and pasted from the site where the tests were documented and the following is the procedure for conducting the engine off zoom climb tests where the Fw190 out-zooms the Spitfire:


10 For the zoomclimb I built a setup that would launch my plane from 5 meters alt vertically up. Initial speed was 600 kph. I used the crimea map. When launched, I'd try to keep my plane vertical with as little control input possible, set throttle to 0 and close radiators where nessessary. The planes used 30 min fuel. The result is my maximum altitude in meters rounded to the nearest 5 m. My margin of error should be about 5 m. Zoomclimb is about weight/drag ratio. This means, that a plane with full fuel would have a better zoomclimb. I tested the P-51 in that regard, it would gain another 10-15 meters with full tanks.

11 Energy retention is nothing special, I simply calculate how the kinetic energy at sea level transforms into potential engery at the highest spot of the climb, assuming that no other energy input (say from the engine) occured. Formula is which


The formula does not cut and paste intact and so it may help to simply look at the altitude gain rather than the percentage of altitude gain.

1270 Fw190
1215 SpitVIII

600 kph from 5 meters vertically up; throttle at 0 - closed radiators. Maximum latitude in meters rounded to the nearest 5 m.

From the g meter perspective the above flight is nothing but deceleration and this cannot be logically disputed at all. The only force applied to gain altitude is momentum or p = vm where velocity is multiplied by mass. More mass = more energy = more altitude gained even if all else (everything exactly) is equal with the only exception being a difference in mass.

In the case of the Spitfire VIII versus the Fw190A-8 in the game there is no way of knowing how different the two planes are modeled. The Fw190A-8 can be modeled with a very poor shape aerodynamically and a very large amount of mass, for example, and the Spitfire can be modeled with a very slippery shape and it can be modeled as being very light and those differences can account for the differences the game calculates for total altitude gained from 600 km/h going straight up vertically.

Note from the site with the engine off zoom climb tests:


I tested the P-51 in that regard, it would gain another 10-15 meters with full tanks.


That is everything else being equal' except pilot induced errors.

Note: If that pilot can't minimize errors then what is the point of testing a game? Is the game being tested to see if players can simulate something or is the game being tested to see if an artificial intelligence program can simulate something?

Back to the altitude gain between the Spitfire VIII and the Fw190A-8 from 600 km/h straight up:

Fw190 1270
SpitVIII 1215

It may help to look at that from a relative viewpoint or two:

A. The Fw190 goes 55 meters higher
B. The Fw190 goes 4 percent higher.

1270 1215 / 1270 = .043307

See how that works?

Example: How much is the relative difference between 100 and 80?

100 80 / 100 = .2

.2 is 20 percent.

In the game the Fw190 goes 2% higher with the engines off and that means two things:

A. In combat the Fw190 overshoots the Spitfire with engines off
B. In combat the Fw190 zoom climbs higher than the Spitfire with engines off

Back to the g meter in the plane perspective:

With engines off the two planes show (even if the game shows a g meter) less than 1 g acceleration going up during the whole flight.

Both planes will not reach the theoretical energy height, no way, no how, it is theoretically impossible because drag force slows both planes down the whole flight.

Moving on to thrust added during the vertical zoom climb going straight up:

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c60/PapaFly/PlaneData/600-0.jpg

I could go back and get the methods to arrive at that result. You can too.

The Spitfire VIII reaches just over 1750 while the Fw190A-8 reaches just over 1600.

The difference is 150.

The difference is 9 %

1750 1600 / 1750 = .0857

The addition of thrust thrusts the Spitfire mass from a 4% disadvantage to a 9% advantage in vertically up zoom climb performance which is a swing of 13%.

How can that be?

The Spitfire produces less thrust than the Fw190A-8.

Does the Spitfire produce more thrust than weight and does the Spitfire mass accelerate up in that zoom climb where total energy is gained during that vertical zoom climb?

What would a g meter record in the cockpit of the Spitfire?

Would a g meter record more than 1 g due to the mass being accelerated upward during that vertical zoom climb against the historically better energy fighter having the label Fw190A-8?

If the Fw190A-8, in the game, is modeled with a rough and bumpy large shape compared to the Spitfire and if the Spitfire is modeled with a much smaller size and shape, then, the addition of thrust would remove more of the air resistance that slows the spitfire down despite the Spitfire having less mass. In effect the Spitfire's prop could remove almost all the air mass slowing the Spitfire down in that decelerating flight going straight up.

The problem with that is that the Fw190 was the smaller plane with the better aerodynamic shape and the problem with that is that the Fw190 was producing much more power than the Spitfire not just a tinny bit more.

The problem with that is that the reason why the Fw190 was a very good vertical maneuvering plane was that the Fw190 was small, slippery, dense, and produced a very large amount of thrust compared to the Spitfire.

A 10% increase in zoom climb performance modeled into the game can only be proven to be factual with accurate data proving the total calculation the game models for total thrust and total drag force for both planes during that flight.

The game could, for example, be so modeled as to produce a readout (toggled on or off) on the lower left of the screen (above the other information that can be toggled on or off) where Drag force is counting down during that zoom upwards and Thrust force is counting up during that zoom upwards.

Total Drag force should be less for the Fw190A-8

Total Thrust force should be more for the Fw190A-8

Momentum is quite obviously more for the Fw190A-8.

How can the 13% increase in zoom climb performance attributed to only thrust be rationalized?

The Spitfire has a higher Thrust to Weight ratio is the often regurgitated rationalization.

When Robert S. Johnson speaks about killing the lighter weight enemies advantage he meant it. The P-47 wasn't the plane with the best thrust to weight ratio it was one of the best at vertical zoom climbs.

Rewriting history is not simulation. History was written and it doesn't need rewriting.


When both aircraft were flying at high cruising speed and were pulled up into a climb from level flight, the Fw 190 had a slight advantage in the initial stages of the climb due to its better acceleration (Ps). The superiority was slightly increased when both aircraft were pulled up into the climb from a dive.

Kettenhunde
06-29-2007, 08:48 AM
Adding thrust to the equation should increase the distance an aircraft zooms not decrease it.

JG14_Josf
06-29-2007, 08:50 AM
Adding thrust to the equation should increase the distance an aircraft zooms not decrease it.

Crumpp,

Are you responding to something or does your words above merely state the obvious. I am just wondering.

M_Gunz
06-29-2007, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So you have RSJ who pulls up hard into a vertical spiral and the other trying to follow.
Does the action of pulling the spiral force drag of both planes to be higher than thrust?
If so, I think that the heavier plane will go higher because of the extra drag and not
because of weight effects on zoom alone.


If you add a turning element to the equation, the heavier aircraft is going to have more drag. It has a higher weight, weight is tied to lift production and higher lift required means more drag due to lift.

In the climb the only force that is not a braking force is thrust.

Flosse is the term for the elevator trim mechanism. It is not a flying tail but it works in a similar fashion, the entire horizontal stabilizer shifts to provide trim forces on the FW190 and Bf-109.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The heavier plane or the plane with the higher wingloading? Also how does L/D factor?
There is also who makes the cleaner transition, so much besides -just- the zoom.

M_Gunz
06-29-2007, 12:25 PM
Oh well, in that post Josf actually went from start to finish with no leaps in logic and
the principles worked out. My guess now is he had help, a lot of help.

Zoom tests engine off in prop planes is nothing short of a joke. The props become a MAJOR
source of drag. Please find me ONE HISTORIC TEST done this way. If there was any value in
the method then I am sure that NACA, RAEE, TSAGI and RLM(?) would all have done that so
finding just one should not be so difficult.

In the two quotes by RSJ he never used a simple side by side zoom to height.

In one the starts a dive well before his unknown "opponent" in some Spitfire and by the time
the Spit is beginning his zoom, RSJ is coming down on him. We never do find out how high the
Spitfire would have zoomed at all.

In the other, RSJ pulls up into a vertical hard spiral (can you say barrel roll?) with enemy
if he is stupid not only trying to match but also trying to get guns on RSJ which requires
lead angle pull. Not exactly a straight zoom climb test is it?

I won't bother with "examples" that exemplify something other than what is claimed so proved.

JG14_Josf
06-29-2007, 02:16 PM
Oh well, in that post Josf actually went from start to finish with no leaps in logic and
the principles worked out. My guess now is he had help, a lot of help.

Helofly,

And what do you make of these comments? Do you continue to perceive equal treatment for all opinions simply because everyone can voice their opinions with impunity?

Why are my posts subject to personal scrutiny as if help' is needed?

Why are my posts graded' according to some scale of abstract or relative merit' according to someone's opinion?

Example:

Zoom tests engine off in prop planes is nothing short of a joke.

Besides being irrelevant to the discussion the above is subjective and nothing more. Removing the factor of thrust minimizes the variables in an effort to quantify the remaining variables precisely. That is no joke. That is how science works. Each variable is measured against each variable separately before measuring any new variable. This concept is a part of control. In experimentation, for example, the control concept suggests a change of one variable only when the idea is to measure the effect of the change of that specific variable; one does not remove yeast and salt from the recipe to find out how well bread can bake without salt.

Having someone label someone else with the expletive "joke" is a form of science; like mud slinging. If enough variations of mud are thrown at the wall; eventually one will stick.

Example:

Zoom tests engine off in prop planes is nothing short of a joke.

Besides the scientific inspection of how mass, momentum, gravity, and air resistance relate without the complicating factor of thrust (before adding the factor of thrust) there is a combat consideration involved in zoom climb maneuvers whereby the fighter pilot endeavors to slow down quicker and thereby force the enemy to overshoot; knowing if your plane slows down quicker when pulling the power is knowing beforehand if your ability to over-shoot the opponent is an physical ability or physical performance advantage that your plane has over the opponent that too is far from a joke.

How much time do you, Helofly, have to spend wiping the mud off your wall before it sticks?

My guess is: very little since you reserve your conclusions for fear of having them shot down with falsehoods.

Either that or you will refrain from posting anything at the mere suggestion that your credibility is questioned.

Then again today is a new day and history is a faded confusion of irrelevant phantoms.

Again:

Eliminating air resistance leaves momentum (p = vm) and gravity whereby the higher mass object arrives at the same energy height' determined by the decelerating force of gravity otherwise the force applied to both objects continue at the rate of velocity those objects have been accelerated toward and reaching.

Add the variable of air resistance and the higher mass object (all other variables exactly the same) will decelerate at a slower rate and therefore reach a higher altitude no matter what the starting altitude and no matter what the starting velocity. The higher mass object will go higher than the lower mass object from any starting altitude and from any starting speed (all else being exactly equal).

Eliminating the factor of thrust further illuminates the nature of the zoom climb through air resistance as being totally absent any accelerating force upward thereby showing how this type of maneuver must be, factually, a continuously decelerating flight path (never gaining total energy). The flight path, without thrust, is a net loss of energy despite the fact that the entire momentum force is spent going the straightest path to the highest possible altitude in the least amount of time.

Eliminating the factor of thrust also adds a dimension to the relationship of mass, momentum, gravity, air resistance, and thrust that would not be visible if thrust was not removed and then reintroduced.

Step A: Remove gravity and see what happens.

Results of Step A: The higher and lower mass objects remain at the velocity they were accelerated to until something resists against that momentum.

Step B: Add gravity and see what happens.

Results of Step B: The higher and lower mass objects slow down and stop traveling at exactly the same distance from the initial test flight where both objects started traveling at the same speed and same altitude from the source of gravitational deceleration.

Step C: Add air resistance and see what happens.

Results of Step C: The higher mass object reaches a farther distance away from the source of gravitational deceleration due to a higher starting energy state requiring more energy to stop the object possessing a higher energy state.

Step D: Add exactly the same ratio of thrust to weight by adding the appropriate amount of thrust to weight and see what happens.

That is where no one responds beyond responding with personal attacks and ridiculous subjective opinion.

Step E: Add exactly the same thrust to each object and see what happens.

Again no response and note too that in either case (Step D or Step E) there is also no response to the question concerning energy height where any aircraft not having more thrust than weight will not reach the theoretical energy height so again the entire flight upward will be decelerating (something that can be easily measured by the seat of the pants or with a g meter).

If the topic question is sincerely asked, then, the answer can be sincerely found even while the trolls continue doing what trolls do so well.

M_Gunz
06-29-2007, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Zoom tests engine off in prop planes is nothing short of a joke.

Besides being irrelevant to the discussion the above is subjective and nothing more. Removing the factor of thrust minimizes the variables in an effort to quantify the remaining variables precisely. That is no joke. That is how science works. Each variable is measured against each variable separately before measuring any new variable. This concept is a part of control. In experimentation, for example, the control concept suggests a change of one variable only when the idea is to measure the effect of the change of that specific variable; one does not remove yeast and salt from the recipe to find out how well bread can bake without salt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Removing factors? That BS "test" ADDS A FACTOR THAT YOU DO NOT ACCOUNT FOR.

And as for your implementation of 'control', it's too easy to see where you want to control
results to become.

You call it science, I call it A JOKE.
You keep calling it science then you are still THE JOKE.
If you don't like that then recall the names and words you have for others, your whiny little
complaints are likewise jokes.

Anything that does not lead to conclusions you drew years ago, you refuse to accept.

Engine off "tests" do not remove the props, they only turn what made thrust into what makes
HUGE DRAG and you act as if that makes no difference because you like the results.

Likewise with the RSJ quotes. NONE OF THEM is a straight test of zoom yet you call them
proof of zoom. ALL OF THEM have added factors yet you ignore those. Why? Because you like
the "results". You use those quotes as rebuttal to anything on zoom you don't agree with and
then come back whining that other people are trolls. YOU DA TROLL, JOKE!

-HH-Quazi
06-29-2007, 04:59 PM
Besides the bickering between Helofly, Josf, & now M_Gunz, this has been an interesting, yet controversial read. So what is up with you guys? The way you talk, or type, to each other, you three seem to have had some run ins in the past. Be that as it may, or may not, still an interesting read. And as long as you are bashing each other in a civil manner, I see no need to shut it down. As a matter of fact, there are some around that could learn some lessons from the manner in which you guys have been disagreeing each other. It is a fine line be sure.

Sorry for the moderating (interruption). Carry on.

M_Gunz
06-29-2007, 05:10 PM
Two planes with equal, large drag, no thrust and one weighs more -- of course the heave one rises higher!

DUUUU UUUH!

How is THAT supposed to say what should happen when the planes run engines at full power, standard
condition for the climbing part of historic zoom tests?

"Oh the 190 loses it's advantage when IL2 runs zoom with engines on! Why? IL2 is wrong!"

JG14_Josf
06-29-2007, 07:17 PM
So what is up with you guys?

Case in point:



"Oh the 190 loses it's advantage when IL2 runs zoom with engines on! Why? IL2 is wrong!"

What does the above quote intend to do and who wrote it?

An honest person will reply honestly. A troll will change the subject.

Again:

The minimum possible factors to consider are:

Mass, velocity, a starting point and an ending point (no gravity, no air resistance).

Any two objects at the same starting velocity and at the starting point (side by side) going in the same direction will continue going in the same direction unless something stops them.

Add gravity.

What happens?

Both objects (even when one object is the same exact object with the only exception of that object having twice the mass = more dense) decelerate or accelerated exactly the same amount (with a very minor difference associated with internal gravity).

Note: Now the trolls can start calling me joke for added the comment on internal gravity so...what is the point?

Now add air resistance.

What happens?

The higher mass object travels farther before decelerating to a stop and then accelerating back toward the source of the gravitational source. The lower mass object (all else except internal mass being exactly equal).

Note: I just read the Trolls response to see if he addressed the next observation seeking an accurate answer and again what spews forth is more insults directed at me, discrediting me personally, and ignoring the discussion, ignoring the topic, and causing trouble creating hate and discontent ON PURPOSE.

What happens when thrust is added in proportion to weight, where, the twice dense object is given twice the thrust force (meaning that the ratio of thrust to weight is the same for both objects)?

A. Both objects reach the same distance away from the source of gravity.
B. One object reaches farther.

There is no C.

That is as easy as multiple choice like this:

Max is a troll:

True

False

Next question:

What happens when one object is given as much thrust as the other object?

What happens if, in no case whatsoever, the amount of thrust exceed the force required to accelerate the mass against the force of gravity?

In other words; when the vector of the thrust is forcing the object against the force of gravity, then, that thrust is insufficient to accelerate the mass at all because the force of gravity is greater than the force of thrust.

A. None of the objects forced through air mass against gravity will reach a distance equal to the distance traveled when momentum alone acted against gravity alone.
B. Something else happens.
C. Attack me personally.

And now; Mr. HH-Quazi, you are placing me among the trolls because I continually defend against them. What does that make you? Could your response have been void of commenting upon me personally? Could you have shared whatever it is that you do find interesting concerning this topic generally and these posts here specifically?

I am curious.

Xiolablu3
06-29-2007, 08:24 PM
Geez, not that bloody graph again.

I just have one question which should tell people all they need to know about that graph!

WHY the FW190A8R8 and not the plain FW190A8?!?!

Next time stick a bomb on the SPitfire or maybe put gondalas on the Bf109. Its all the same, isnt it? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif


Why do I neever see Josf quoting JTD's excellent energy retention tests which show how accurate the game is with regards to zoom climb and energy rention?

Its like hes on a constant crusade to say the game is 'wrong'. Any data which shows things as correct is completely disregarded.

Does anyone have a link for JTD's energy retention tests pls? I think they should be shown in this thread.

M_Gunz
06-29-2007, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
That is as easy as multiple choice like this:

Max is a troll:

True

False

Next question:

Oh, you want to http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif


What happens if, in no case whatsoever, the amount of thrust exceed the force required to accelerate the mass against the force of gravity?

In other words; when the vector of the thrust is forcing the object against the force of gravity, then, that thrust is insufficient to accelerate the mass at all because the force of gravity is greater than the force of thrust.

A. None of the objects forced through air mass against gravity will reach a distance equal to the distance traveled when momentum alone acted against gravity alone.
B. Something else happens.
C. Attack me personally.

Hard to say since you left so much out.
Is the mass moving and in what direction?
Is the mass on or above the surface of the gravity source?

From possible answer A it looks like objects traveling upward through air in gravity.
And maybe this less than 1G thrust will be enough or not to raise the objects as high as they
would with no thrust and no drag.

But so much is left out there's no way in H to tell. No numbers whatsoever. How much drag,
how much thrust, how much gravity, how much mass to the object, where it starts and how fast
it is moving, NOTHING.

Therefore I call that a troll.
Go ahead and say that is a personal attack after your little http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif above!

MrMojok
06-29-2007, 10:38 PM
Josf when you get time could you check your PMs please mate.

M_Gunz
06-29-2007, 11:23 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So you have RSJ who pulls up hard into a vertical spiral and the other trying to follow.
Does the action of pulling the spiral force drag of both planes to be higher than thrust?
If so, I think that the heavier plane will go higher because of the extra drag and not
because of weight effects on zoom alone.


If you add a turning element to the equation, the heavier aircraft is going to have more drag. It has a higher weight, weight is tied to lift production and higher lift required means more drag due to lift.

In the climb the only force that is not a braking force is thrust. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please though, there is a dynamic of the differences here when both have net drag. As shown
by cannon shells and other ways, when you have net drag (drag > thrust) and all the same except
for mass then the greater mass will carry higher. Agree?
So how much less drag for the lighter one to rise the same, there is some value when all other
blanks are filled in, right? This is with drag > thrust, which is slowed more after divide
by slugs and compared to drag = thrust for both.

Please check me on this or at least come up with some realistic ballpark values to see if
there are also realistic ballpark 'solve-for's? So far I only intuit based on how net drag
does slow things like cannon shells where larger shell with more drag goes farther but I
can't say how the difference of ratios of drag and weight shells compares to same of planes
making maneuvers. I only see possibilities in the math but not if they are realistic.

That is just theory anyway since we don't know other things. We don't know the speed at which
the maneuver is done, how close each is to full level speed so who has more excess thrust.
RSJ did not say. We don't know who comes through the transition with higher speed either.
We don't know reaction time of the pilot following RSJ for all that matters.

Like I said before, it's only an idea but I'd like to explore it and try to 'find bottom'
of what to me appears like a murky pond or perhaps puddle.

luftluuver
06-29-2007, 11:42 PM
You asked me once for a link to your statement Josf. Here it is, http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/106...271077235#5271077235 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/1061081725?r=5271077235#5271077235)


I get the part where your superior judgment is used to inform me how far off the topic I have wandered during my metal sickness.

You also said when asked if you have a reading problem.


Yes I do.

JG4_Helofly
06-30-2007, 02:27 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Geez, not that bloody graph again.

I just have one question which should tell people all they need to know about that graph!

WHY the FW190A8R8 and not the plain FW190A8?!?!

Next time stick a bomb on the SPitfire or maybe put gondalas on the Bf109. Its all the same, isnt it? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif


Why do I neever see Josf quoting JTD's excellent energy retention tests which show how accurate the game is with regards to zoom climb and energy rention?

Its like hes on a constant crusade to say the game is 'wrong'. Any data which shows things as correct is completely disregarded.

Does anyone have a link for JTD's energy retention tests pls? I think they should be shown in this thread.

What's wrong with the 190 A8R8? As far as I know this version did not have gondolas and the mk 108 was not much heavier than the mg151/20.

As for the energy retention test. This test was with engine off. And how do you know if it's accurate or not? Do you have RL charts to proove it?

What I also find interesting is the RL p47 dive chart made by JtD. If his values are correct, the game has a big problem with dive acceleration.

msalama
06-30-2007, 02:31 AM
Here we go:

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/t404/404testing.html

-HH-Quazi
06-30-2007, 02:58 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Geez, not that bloody graph again.

Does anyone have a link for JTD's energy retention tests pls? I think they should be shown in this thread. Is this the tests by JTD that you are inquiring about Xiolablu:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/8921055484/p/1

If not, please disregard.

JG14_Josf
06-30-2007, 10:32 AM
Hard to say since you left so much out.
Is the mass moving and in what direction?
Is the mass on or above the surface of the gravity source?

From possible answer A it looks like objects traveling upward through air in gravity.
And maybe this less than 1G thrust will be enough or not to raise the objects as high as they
would with no thrust and no drag.

But so much is left out there's no way in H to tell. No numbers whatsoever. How much drag,
how much thrust, how much gravity, how much mass to the object, where it starts and how fast
it is moving, NOTHING.

Therefore I call that a troll.

Helofly,

Do you see what is happening but you fear being discredited if you speak out about what is happening?

A.

Hard to say since you left so much out.
Is the mass moving and in what direction?
Is the mass on or above the surface of the gravity source?


Who is so ignorant that they cannot know what is being discussed here? The mass is, of course, moving vertically up. What is the topic? If I were to repeat everything then I am attacked for being verbose. Why does my person have to be included into the question being discussed?

"I" left so much out and "I" am verbose and "I" am not recognizing all opinions and "I" am one of the many people on this board who argue for the sake of argument.

How about answering the question?

Two objects.
No air resistance
No gravity
One object is twice the mass as the other.
Both objects start at the same speed.
Both objects continue traveling at the same speed side by side until something slows them down.

Two objects.
One is twice the mass
Only air resistance slows them down.
The higher mass object takes longer to slow down.
All else being equal

Two objects
One is twice the mass
Air resistance slows the lower mass object down faster
Gravity is added (on any vector but for ease of seeing exactly what happens the gravity vector is parallel with the velocity vector of both objects)
[The velocity on the velocity vector is the same for both objects (any starting velocity will arrive at the same physical relationship; however 600 km/h will do as a starting velocity)]
Gravity slows both objects at the same exact rate of deceleration away from the gravity source so the lower mass object slows down faster due to air resistance.

Now add thrust at a ratio that maintains an equal thrust to weight ratio for both objects (where the lower mass object is slowed down faster by air resistance) and do not add more thrust than weight.

Does either object reach as far away from the gravity source (vertically parallel away from the gravity vector)?

Does one object go farther away from the gravity source than the other object (one object is twice the mass as the other object and that object isn't slowed down as fast by air resistance as the lighter mass object)?

That is the question concerning the question about thrust to weight ratios, where, thrust to weight ratio is kept equal as in "All else being equal".

Then forget about keeping thrust to weight equal and instead keep total thrust force equal and answer the same questions:

Does either object reach the no air resistance distance away from the gravity source when neither object has more thrust then weight?

Does either object go farther than the other object (through air resistance) where the lower mass object slows down faster by air resistance and the lower mass object has a higher thrust to weight ratio because thrust is the same for both aircraft?

As to X3s problem with me, thanks Helofly, for pointing out how the Fw190A-8 with 30mm cannons in the wings does not present the same aerodynamic change as a Spitfire with an external bomb or a 109 with gun pods. Don't, whatever you do, mention anything about how my person is being attacked by X3. By all means though make sure that you jab at me too concerning my inability to entertain other people's opinions concerning the actual topic.

Helofly,

Do you understand the questions I ask or are you as confused about them as Max pretends to be?

Why answer the question when you can divert the topic?



But so much is left out there's no way in H to tell. No numbers whatsoever. How much drag,
how much thrust, how much gravity, how much mass to the object, where it starts and how fast
it is moving, NOTHING.

Therefore I call that a troll.

Fw190 1270 SpitVIII 1215 (http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/t404/404testing.html)

No engine above.

Engine below:

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c60/PapaFly/PlaneData/600-0.jpg


Why answer the question when it is so much easier to attack someone?

M_Gunz
06-30-2007, 11:04 AM
There was ever a FW with Mk 108's INSIDE the wing??

Unspecified mass moving at unspecified speed through air, quick someone tell me how far it goes!

JG14_Josf
06-30-2007, 11:18 AM
Unspecified mass moving at unspecified speed through air, quick someone tell me how far it goes!

Max,

Oleg's game answered your question for you and players documented that answer for you.

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c60/PapaFly/PlaneData/600-0.jpg

The unspecified mass moving at an unspecified rate of deceleration goes the distance shown on the chart. There is also an unspecified amount of total thrust force involved in that test.

Fw190 1270 SpitVIII 1215 (http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/t404/404testing.html)

That is the unspecified distance with the unspecified drag force produced by wind milling props while the unspecified mass decelerates at an unspecified rate of deceleration with the engines off. Is that quick enough for you or are you just here to cause trouble?

Note: The specific advantage in distance gained by the Fw190 over the Spitfire VIII with engines off is removed and replaced with a specific advantage in distance gained by the Spitfire VIII over the Fw190A-8 when the Fw190 and the Spitfire VIII are given an uspecified amount of total thrust force to help them along.

In the historical documenation the Fw190A-8 was capable of producing more thrust force than the Spitfire, so, why does more equal less in the game?

Answer: Change the subject

na85
06-30-2007, 11:46 AM
M_Gunz,

Stop dodging the questions Josf is asking.

Your ad hominem attacks are not working.



You call it science, I call it A JOKE.
You keep calling it science then you are still THE JOKE.
If you don't like that then recall the names and words you have for others, your whiny little
complaints are likewise jokes.



Oh well, in that post Josf actually went from start to finish with no leaps in logic and
the principles worked out. My guess now is he had help, a lot of help.




Two planes with equal, large drag, no thrust and one weighs more -- of course the heave one rises higher!

DUUUU UUUH!

How is THAT supposed to say what should happen when the planes run engines at full power, standard
condition for the climbing part of historic zoom tests?

"Oh the 190 loses it's advantage when IL2 runs zoom with engines on! Why? IL2 is wrong!"


Stop polluting the thread with this garbage.

M_Gunz
06-30-2007, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Unspecified mass moving at unspecified speed through air, quick someone tell me how far it goes!

Max,

Oleg's game answered your question for you and players documented that answer for you.

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c60/PapaFly/PlaneData/600-0.jpg

The unspecified mass moving at an unspecified rate of deceleration goes the distance shown on the chart. There is also an unspecified amount of total thrust force involved in that test.

Fw190 1270 SpitVIII 1215 (http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/t404/404testing.html)

That is the unspecified distance with the unspecified drag force produced by wind milling props while the unspecified mass decelerates at an unspecified rate of deceleration with the engines off. Is that quick enough for you or are you just here to cause trouble?

Note: The specific advantage in distance gained by the Fw190 over the Spitfire VIII with engines off is removed and replaced with a specific advantage in distance gained by the Spitfire VIII over the Fw190A-8 when the Fw190 and the Spitfire VIII are given an uspecified amount of total thrust force to help them along.

In the historical documenation the Fw190A-8 was capable of producing more thrust force than the Spitfire, so, why does more equal less in the game?

Answer: Change the subject </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Finally some actual particulars as opposed to next to none.

And BTW, the height of the bars on that graph are not proportional to total performance.
The bottom 1400m is cut off, the biggest difference is less than 300m and the result is
as Crumpp has shown it is generally as it should be.

I can't remember having seen any historical document comparing the full height zoom of a
FW190A-8 to any Spitfire which "why does more equal less in the game?" in conjuction with
that graph would seem to indicate you expect that thrust alone should make it different.

Acceleration, climb and turn all depend heavily on Excess Thrust to Weight. And Excess
Thrust changes with Speed. What speeds a "test" is run at can favor the faster and heavier
plane or the slower and lighter plane. I put "test" in quotes because when the results are
trotted out, the BIAS of such "test" is most often left out completely or just ignored by
those keen on turning anything that they can use into something unreal.

I wonder what version those climbs were made using, if the tracks are still playable and
get the same results?

But you, Josf, KNOW enough to tell graduated aero-engineers to piss off so who can argue?

na85
06-30-2007, 09:50 PM
Josf,

Is there any data available for the zoom climb performance of the FW 190 A8 without the mk108's?

diomedes33
07-01-2007, 12:04 AM
What's wrong with the energy, drag and thrust models in IL-2 is that pc's do not have enough computing power to solve the complete Navier-Stokes equations fast enough on a complex body to be used in real-time. Someday perhaps, but not today.

Keep in mind that IL-2 is a $50 piece of entertainment software.

Its NOT a half-million dollar engineering analysis package.

Even if you fix what's wrong with the energy, thrust, drag modeling. You'll either have to break something else or it will not be runnable.

I know its probably a bad idea to say anything, but I just can't help myself.

M_Gunz
07-01-2007, 02:30 AM
Keep in mind that IL-2 is a $50 piece of entertainment software.

Its NOT a half-million dollar engineering analysis package.

The difference is not so great as 10% is it? I would think not so.

Where the big difference really is, is between expectations/imagination and what the $50 sim
made by the highly trained on real aircraft people performs when used by untrained gamers.

We have people here that seem to think that flying prop planes is like driving automatic
transmission cars. Foot down all the way means as fast as it goes. Put them in a car with
manual transmission and even before they lunch the box, they achieve less than great output
and probably still go mouthing off about how bad the car is.

There is simply much more than the ones "noticing problems" are willing to take into account.

na85..."Is there any data available for the zoom climb performance of the FW 190 A8 without the mk108's?"

It's not dramatic and point-proving enough to include. The graph magnifies differences and
so do the plane choices.

Xiolablu3
07-01-2007, 04:27 AM
These are the tests I thought were by JTD, if not then I apologise :-

Very good info here :-

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/t404/404testing.html


Disregard those other random graphs and use this.

NO doubt things have improved a bit since 4.04m.

Of course this will be quickly forgotten by Josf because it shows things as pretty much correct. I hope to see this page quoted and shown as often as those other graphs now as its very much on topic and a much more useful/controlled test than those graphs.

airdale1960
07-01-2007, 06:54 AM
I'm trying to understand this thread, so bear with me; So what ya'll are saying is this game (the best Flight Sim made) doesn't take the aircraft co-efficiants, say like the trajectory difference between a Flat-Nose hollowpoint bullet,and say, a Spitzer-boattail?

JG14_Josf
07-01-2007, 09:39 AM
Please excuse the editing mess up (the full post follows):


I'm trying to understand this thread, so bear with me; So what ya'll are saying is this game (the best Flight Sim made) doesn't take the aircraft co-efficiants, say like the trajectory difference between a Flat-Nose hollowpoint bullet,and say, a Spitzer-boattail?

Airdale1960,

If the game engine could add two more planes into the armada and if the game engine could spawn those two new planes into a mission where both planes start from a specific point side by side going straight up as the same speed, then, the flat nose hollow point and the boat tail Spitzer could be shot straight up to see which one goes higher through air mass (air resistance).

The game engine would probably make the Spitzer go higher especially if the game engine included more mass for the smaller caliber Spitzer and if the game engine included less mass for the larger caliber hollow point.

No one knows what the game engine includes for mass or any other dimension for any planes in the game other than those people who adjust the variables of mass and any other dimensions in the game.

Supposing what is wrong with the game from the point of view of the game engine is speculative at best.

Knowing what the game produced for simulated distances traveled through simulated air while the planes are flying simulated vertical zoom climbs going straight up have yet to be accounted for accurately due to a few reasons.

A. The actual historical zoom climb combat tests were done off the pure vertical which introduces non ballistic variables like lift force'.
B. Players are not serious about accounting for game accuracy using science.

I've done my own tests and my procedures are recorded on another forum.

Here is my final presentation:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Anatamy%20of%20Drag%20Test.jpg

Assuming (and this is a big assumption) that the game engine does model the variable of weight in the proper proportion the engine off tests produce distances traveled through air as if the Spitfire is much smaller in aerodynamic size (which it is not).

So...adding two new bullets to the game engine requires that the person adding the data describing the actual proportions of those bullets be accurate about it.

Otherwise you may get things like this:

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c60/PapaFly/PlaneData/600-0.jpg

Granted: The above is like adding more thrust force to the Spitzer (Fw) and less thrust to the Hollow Point (Spitfire).

If there is any question concerning which plane is the Spitzer and which plane is the Hollow Point, then, look here (http://us.share.geocities.com/hlangebro/J22/EAAjanuary1999.pdf)

The Spitzer (Fw) is about 19% more massive than the larger and less aerodynamically clean Hollow Point (Spitfire) so accelerating the larger mass does require more thrust force (a more powerful engine and a better way of turning that power into thrust).

The ballistic flight going straight up (with or without the engine thrust) is not accelerating the mass at all. That type of flight eliminates any advantage in thrust to weight ratios because that type of flight is ballistic in nature i.e. decelerating constantly by air resistance and gravitational acceleration.

If you are interested in WWII fighters and ballistics, then, you may want to save the David Lednicer study while it remains available on the net.


Try again? (http://us.share.geocities.com/hlangebro/J22/EAAjanuary1999.pdf)

I tried the link above again and the page didn't load. I have the .pdf file on my hard drive and I can send it.

It includes things like this:


Experimentally, it was determined that the Spitfire cooling system drag, expressed as the ratio of equivalent cooling-drag power to total engine power, was considerably higher than that of other aircraft tested by the RAE.


It has neat pictures too. Such as the one showing how the Spitfire windscreen is too steep.

Even with the better power to weight ratio (a dubious measurement when this merely lists engine power and does not actually list thrust power) the Spitfire, the real Spitfire, wasn't known as a plane that could accelerate fast.

Test
here (http://www.pbase.com/chrisdnt/190_tests) prove this historical fact.

na85
07-01-2007, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
These are the tests I thought were by JTD, if not then I apologise :-

Very good info here :-

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/t404/404testing.html


Disregard those other random graphs and use this.

NO doubt things have improved a bit since 4.04m.

Of course this will be quickly forgotten by Josf because it shows things as pretty much correct. I hope to see this page quoted and shown as often as those other graphs now as its very much on topic and a much more useful/controlled test than those graphs.

Xiolablu3,

I don't think that that test contradicts anything Josf has said in this thread. JtD's tests were done at 0% throttle, and his results show the FW190 zoom higher than the Spit.


From JtD's tests

...
10 For the zoomclimb I built a setup that would launch my plane from 5 meters alt vertically up. Initial speed was 600 kph. I used the crimea map. When launched, I'd try to keep my plane vertical with as little control input possible, set throttle to 0 and close radiators where nessessary. The planes used 30 min fuel. The result is my maximum altitude in meters rounded to the nearest 5 m. My margin of error should be about 5 m. Zoomclimb is about weight/drag ratio. This means, that a plane with full fuel would have a better zoomclimb. I tested the P-51 in that regard, it would gain another 10-15 meters with full tanks.

11 Energy retention is nothing special, I simply calculate how the kinetic energy at sea level transforms into potential engery at the highest spot of the climb, assuming that no other energy input (say from the engine) occured....

diomedes33
07-01-2007, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
The difference is not so great as 10% is it? I would think not so.


I agree. 1c/Maddox did a remarkable job making a believable flight model real-time. However I think that some people (no one particular in mind) forget that this is just a game. Every once in awhile I'll see behavior that is suspect. No biggie, no computer model is perfect all the time. Overall, aircraft climb, turn, stall and really don't react well to bullets. IMHO, IL-2 does an excellent job of capturing the overall "feeling" of flight.

Good point M_Gunz, I've seen both types of threads where people are trying to fix that 10% and ones where they haven't a clue what they were talking about. This one is a bit hard to make heads or tails of.

What I'm confused about is what's the point of this thread? Is it an educational exercise or is something going to be done with this information?

If anyone's interested, this is the intro to flight testing (http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Education/OnlineEd/Intro2Flight/index.html) provided by NASA Dryden research center. They know a thing or two about testing airplanes.

JG14_Josf
07-01-2007, 12:41 PM
Wind up Turn (http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Education/OnlineEd/Intro2Flight/naswut.html)

More about Wind up Turn (http://flighttest.navair.navy.mil/unrestricted/FTM108/c6.pdf)

Turn performance is very interesting for anyone wanting to find out what is wrong with the game too. The vertical or ballistic flight errors are easier to see as error because those perspectives eliminate many of the variables that contribute to complexity and subsequent confusion.

Some obvious variables; however remain constant even when introducing the lift force variable and here it is important (in my opinion and you can have your own opinion for whatever reason you feel necessary) to identify which force dominates.

The force slowing down the mass dominates.

When the force slowing down the mass dominates, then, the mass decelerates.

When the mass decelerates, then, the mass isn't accelerating.

This is an important understanding (it has taken me a long time to see this clearly as a routine = rather than as a discipline if you know what I mean if not then not) an important understanding that clears things up well.

A decelerating turn is a turn where the mass decelerates and this may be difficult to imagine from a feel' point of view in the cockpit (or hanging under the wing like I've done in real air during a real turn at real g force while hearing the wing strain under the real load), this may be difficult to understand as being a deceleration of mass while the body feels an accelerating force.

A player of the game having an interest in understanding what happens during real flight might read-on. Others may read the name of the person writing and then respond to the name of the person writing just because they can.

A player may get used to a game that models a situation whereby one plane will decelerate fast from 700 km/h to the 6 g stall speed at, say, 400 km/h and note that this particular plane scrubs off those numbers measuring velocity rather quickly and they also note, in the game, that the distance around the turn during that deceleration of mass isn't as good under the same conditions as another plane and then the player looks at the weight difference and determines that the higher weight causes the decreased turn performance in that decelerating turn.

This, of course, is nonsense. The actual reason why one plane will not perform as well in a decelerating turn from high speed to slow speed when g force is the same for both planes (all else being equal except mass) is knowable with Wind up Turn tests. The player may be surprised to find that the higher mass plane turns better because it decelerates faster. Then again the player may simply ignore the facts and go for the insulting comments as part of their default settings and their chosen discipline.

When "all else is equal" between two planes decelerating in a turn from high speed to slow speed except the variable of mass there will be two very obvious differences in turn performance for that one plane at those two weights.

A. Stall speed increases with mass.
B. More force is needed to decelerate the increased mass.

If the turn is initiated with the lift vector pointing down, then, the higher mass version of the same plane is going to need more force to decelerate the increased mass. The lower mass version of the same plane will decelerate rapidly at the 6 g decelerating force rate when the lift vector is pointed straight down. That is obvious.

If the turn is initiated with the lift vector pointing up, then, the higher mass version of the same plane is going to need more force to decelerate the increase mass. The lower mass version of the same plane will decelerate rapidly at the 6 g decelerating force rate when the lift vector is pointed straight up. That is obvious and that is obvious because gravity doesn't change a thing relative to the rate of deceleration caused by gravity on the two different weights of the same plane. The difference in rates of deceleration is a function of momentum, thrust, and drag force. The lighter version of the same plane will decelerate faster, perhaps, and carve a tighter turn at 6 g while decelerating faster because the rate of deceleration at 6 g determines the rate of increase in turn rate and the rate of decrease in turn radius for the same plane at different weights.

Different planes are different for many reasons and the most obvious reason determining different rates of deceleration in a high speed to slow speed turn at constant g (Wind up Turn)

Edit: The wind up turn is a proceedure whereby the aircraft speed is held constant and the force of lift is increased gradually up to the stall or g limit. The loaded deceleration porceedure may be the proceedure that holds g force constant as speed drops to the stall line (level flight)

Therefore:

Different planes are different for many reasons and the most obvious reason determining different rates of deceleration in a high speed to slow speed turn at constant g (loaded deceleration) is something misnamed as the lift to drag ratio, which, if you think about it is simply the amount of air resistance causing the aircraft to slow down (drag) and the amount of air mass being forced in the opposite direction of the lift vector (lift), where, a very poorly designed plane (poor lift to drag ratio) will slow down very fast without adding much lift force, and, a very well designed plane (efficient lift to drag ratio) will force a very large amount of air mass downward (opposite the lift vector) compared to the amount of air mass (drag) that only slows the airplane down.

That may or may not be easy to see if the player, or the person interested in WWII air combat, or the person interested in how well the game simulated WWII air combat, goes back to the feel of things. In a 6 g turn it may be difficult to feel how the aircraft is slowing down. 6 times the force of gravity must be an accelerating feeling. A ride on a roller coaster, for example, is probably less than 1 g greater than gravitational acceleration. My best turn rate in the fastest and tightest turn I flew with my Hang Glider was probably less than 2 g. A 4 g turn for a human head that weighs 25 lbs weights 100 lbs during the turn that is a decelerating turn. Few (if any) WWII fighter aircraft were capable of sustaining (not accelerating) 4 g let alone 6 g; therefore - all WWII 6 g turns (like all WWII vertical zoom climbs) were decelerating flights where the mass is being slowed down by air resistance and/or gravity.

I add the "and/or" gravity qualifier because a 6 g turn can be sustained' in a diving turn where gravity does add to the accelerating force in the turn for WWII fighter aircraft.

The ratio of how much air resistance is slowing down the plane and how much air mass is being forced by the main wings downward and opposite the lift vector is the determining factor causing some planes to turn while other planes merely slow down. A WWII fighter aircraft that slows down without turning is a very poorly designed fighter aircraft; very poor indeed. A supposed fighter aircraft that pays a very large amount of energy for a very little bit of change in heading must be an aircraft with a whole lot of bumps and bulges that do nothing to force air mass downward (opposite the lift vector) as a ratio of that Drag to the rest of the aircraft mass that does, in fact, force air mass opposite the lift vector and thereby accelerate the plane on the lift vector.

The elusive L/D ratio for any WWII fighter plane is as elusive as any of those drag numbers for those WII fighter planes including the drag force measurements associated with prop discs that windmill.

Therefore there must be a dependence upon historical documentation concerning how WWII aircraft actually did test out in relative performance tests in WWII while the combat fighter pilots were depending upon this accurate information as they endeavored to stay alive in order to fight another day.

Like this:

Climb (http://www.pbase.com/chrisdnt/image/16364655)

The climb of the Fw-190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the Fw.190 is about 450 ft/min, better up to 25,000 feet.
50. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw.190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the Fw.10 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it.


Climb, zoom climb, climb angle, acceleration on the lift vector (pulling up) and which plane is superior in each of those performance variables are documented facts and the error between those historical facts and what is simulated' in the game are not matters of degree (more or less than 10%), no, those are errors of opposites.

The game goes like this:


The climb of the Fw-190A-4 is inferior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are completely different, and the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably shallower. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the Fw.190 is about 450 ft/min, worse at all altitudes.
50. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the inferior climb of the Fw.190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the Spitfire draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Fw190 has no hope of catching it.


Players like to point out how the game doesn't model the older version of Fw190A-3 as if this observation isn't further exposing the game error since the Fw190A-4 was an improvement over the Fw190A-3.

Players like to point out that the game doesn't model the Spitfire VB (June 1942) used in the real' flight tests as if this observation isn't further exposing the game error since the Spitfire VB (1941) remains the label attached to the game version of Spitfire despite the obvious ease involved in changing the number 1 on the label to whatever Spitfire year the game actually models.

Players like to point out that the Spitfire VB (whatever year is being modeled) has a strange climb rate as if the engine output for that climb rate is the output expected from a Spitfire running at 12lb boost pressure while the same plane is modeled with a strange level speed suggesting the same engine is boosted at 9lbs (or less) as if this isn't further exposing the game error.

If a P-47 can be modeled in the game (finally) as the energy fighter is was in history, then, the game engine isn't the problem. Perhaps the problem is the data used to quantify specific qualities of specific planes accurately.

Kettenhunde
07-01-2007, 12:57 PM
The elusive L/D ratio for any WWII fighter plane

The L/D ratio are not elusive. They are easy to calculate for any given condition of flight.

Add the disc area to the drag reference area if you want to approximate a wind milling propeller.

All the best,

Crumpp

JG14_Josf
07-01-2007, 01:09 PM
Xiolablu3,

I don't think that that test contradicts anything Josf has said in this thread. JtD's tests were done at 0% throttle, and his results show the FW190 zoom higher than the Spit.

na85,

Thanks. I can use all the help I can get in proving how I do not need interpreters guarding the bridge toward understanding what I do think and the meaning of what I write.

Once the words are published, for anyone, the words either contain meaning or they do not contain meaning that can be transferred accurately. Someone volunteering to grade the words as being effective for the person doing the grading is one thing. Someone volunteering to grade the words as being effective for everyone is another thing.

Having someone volunteer to express an understanding of the words written does help.

Regardless of popularity there remains an understanding.

There is the WWII reality:


The climb of the Fw-190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the Fw.190 is about 450 ft/min, better up to 25,000 feet.
50. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw.190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the Fw.10 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it.

That is clearly understandable as words describing reality.

I didn't write those words. I merely copy them and paste them in places where people are asking relevant questions concerning them.

Some people are inclined to shoot the messenger.

Does that last sentence communicate accurately?

JG14_Josf
07-01-2007, 01:13 PM
The L/D ratio are not elusive. They are easy to calculate for any given condition of flight.

Add the disc area to the drag reference area if you want to approximate a wind milling propeller.

Reality Check:

Fw190A-8 (with and without 108 wing cannons):

A. L/D ratio
B. Prop disc drag during decelerating flight from 700 km/h to 0 km/h going straight up with throttle lever pulled back (closed) and throttle lever fully forward (open)

Spitfire VIII

A. Same as above
B. ditto

If the numbers are not elusive, then, the numbers will materialize in fact and those numbers will be accurate in fact.

Otherwise the reality of the fact will remain a fact - still.

The information remains elusive.

Kettenhunde
07-01-2007, 07:49 PM
Fw190A-8


Clean configuration from stall to Vmax:

Lift to Drag
0.223717008
9.102769099
9.741036017
10.32886699
10.85713146
11.70826594
12.02335135
12.26336733
12.4298758
12.52620773
12.5571036
12.52832708
12.44628734
12.31769681
12.14928144
11.94755141
11.71863277
11.46815507
11.20118711
10.92221152
10.63512881
10.34328237
10.04949734
9.756127386
9.465105054
9.177992476
8.896030208
8.620182821
8.351180475
8.219419514
8.089556112
7.835678255
7.589779574
7.351981515
7.12231534
6.90073998
6.687157061
6.481423492
6.283361927
6.092769432
5.909424603
5.733093391
5.563533838
5.400499886
5.243744434
5.182745098

Spitfire Mk IX Merlin 66 from stall to Vmax:

Lift to Drag
0.26493391
8.766521979
10.26167776
11.46699172
12.30042809
12.73977478
12.82006579
12.8171551
12.74032873
12.59961409
12.40517888
12.1668609
11.89383354
11.59439528
11.27586288
10.94454467
10.60577092
10.26396142
9.922714294
9.584904038
9.252780485
8.928063147
8.61202781
8.305583761
8.009341195
7.723669057
7.448743984
7.184591246
6.931118646
6.808333428
6.688144361
6.455419605
6.232646956
6.019495055
5.815610311
5.62062614
5.434170193
5.255869953
5.085357001
4.922270227
4.766258185
4.616980768
4.474110346
4.337332484
4.258064469
4.155508757

It's not hard to calculate, Josf.

All the best,

Crumpp

M_Gunz
07-01-2007, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by airdale1960:
I'm trying to understand this thread, so bear with me; So what ya'll are saying is this game (the best Flight Sim made) doesn't take the aircraft co-efficiants, say like the trajectory difference between a Flat-Nose hollowpoint bullet,and say, a Spitzer-boattail?

Different people are saying different things. Best WWII Combat Flight Sim for PC made.
Also has real competition precision aerobatics pilots saying the modeling is the best in thread
in the Oleg's Ready Room.

Some people get ideas and then find reasons or parts of reasons and nail hypothesis together.

Caveat Forum Reader!

M_Gunz
07-01-2007, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
These are the tests I thought were by JTD, if not then I apologise :-

Very good info here :-

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/t404/404testing.html


Disregard those other random graphs and use this.

NO doubt things have improved a bit since 4.04m.

Of course this will be quickly forgotten by Josf because it shows things as pretty much correct. I hope to see this page quoted and shown as often as those other graphs now as its very much on topic and a much more useful/controlled test than those graphs.

You mean where he shows that most Spits run 86% retention or less and the 190A's run 87-89%?
THAT chart?

Only handling is supposed to have improved AFAIK. But average players mistake that for FM.
If the plane flies better, it MUST BE FM since perfect gamer always got the most possible.

M_Gunz
07-01-2007, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by diomedes33:
What I'm confused about is what's the point of this thread? Is it an educational exercise or is something going to be done with this information?

From first post of this thread

The question here is: what's wrong with thrust, drag and energy modeling.
I would like to discuss about how these things are modeled in the game compared to RL.
This is also a try to continue the discussion which was locked due to massive insults.
RL test and in-game tests are welcome, but try to discuss without insulting this time.



If anyone's interested, this is the intro to flight testing (http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Education/OnlineEd/Intro2Flight/index.html) provided by NASA Dryden research center. They know a thing or two about testing airplanes.

TY for the link! But...
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif what do those guys know about aircraft besides theory? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Honestly, I've posted FAA docs on how stall speed is determined and was replied those words!

M_Gunz
07-01-2007, 08:40 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Fw190A-8


Clean configuration from stall to Vmax:

Lift to Drag
0.223717008
9.102769099
9.741036017
10.32886699
10.85713146
11.70826594
12.02335135
12.26336733
12.4298758
12.52620773
12.5571036
12.52832708
12.44628734
12.31769681
12.14928144
11.94755141
11.71863277
11.46815507
11.20118711
10.92221152
10.63512881
10.34328237
10.04949734
9.756127386
9.465105054
9.177992476
8.896030208
8.620182821
8.351180475
8.219419514
8.089556112
7.835678255
7.589779574
7.351981515
7.12231534
6.90073998
6.687157061
6.481423492
6.283361927
6.092769432
5.909424603
5.733093391
5.563533838
5.400499886
5.243744434
5.182745098

Spitfire Mk IX Merlin 66 from stall to Vmax:

Lift to Drag
0.26493391
8.766521979
10.26167776
11.46699172
12.30042809
12.73977478
12.82006579
12.8171551
12.74032873
12.59961409
12.40517888
12.1668609
11.89383354
11.59439528
11.27586288
10.94454467
10.60577092
10.26396142
9.922714294
9.584904038
9.252780485
8.928063147
8.61202781
8.305583761
8.009341195
7.723669057
7.448743984
7.184591246
6.931118646
6.808333428
6.688144361
6.455419605
6.232646956
6.019495055
5.815610311
5.62062614
5.434170193
5.255869953
5.085357001
4.922270227
4.766258185
4.616980768
4.474110346
4.337332484
4.258064469
4.155508757

It's not hard to calculate, Josf.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are those for different AOA's and if so what is the increment and say, stall AOA of each
if I may ask?

Kettenhunde
07-01-2007, 09:04 PM
Are those for different AOA's and if so what is the increment and say, stall AOA of each
if I may ask?


Yes L/D is tied to AoA. Those represent level flight. L/D is tied to design so the ratios will not change nor will the AoA a particular L/D ratio occurs change.

I did not calculate the increment but it is not hard to do either. I can do that for you. You ever done unreliable airspeed calculations? It's similar.

Before someone claims, "All my airspeed calculations are unreliable!", that is a method you can use if your airspeed indicator fails. You pull out a calculator and SWAG the body AoA you want to achieve in order to fly at a specific airspeed.

For the FW190A8 the L/D ratio just before the stall is 9.102769099.

AT the stall it drops to nearly nothing as we are now falling and not flying.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
07-01-2007, 09:48 PM
Induced AoA for the FW190A8. It should correspond to the L/D data.
You know how to use this to figure out you AoA? It's just adding the infinite wing AoA to it.

4.580425127
4.522749835
4.081781726
3.70229635
3.373373327
2.834570643
2.612340305
2.415255459
2.239660755
2.082541697
1.9413944
1.814125212
1.698972623
1.594445987
1.499277034
1.41238122
1.332826686
1.259809175
1.192631622
1.130687459
1.073446871
1.020445431
0.971274652
0.925574088
0.883024711
0.843343332
0.806277872
0.771603351
0.739118466
0.723639974
0.708642661
0.680013615
0.653085076
0.627724987
0.603813865
0.581243393
0.559915189
0.539739732
0.520635424
0.502527759
0.4853486
0.469035533
0.453531303
0.438783308
0.424743156
0.419315184

All the best,

Crumpp

JG14_Josf
07-01-2007, 10:49 PM
For the FW190A8 the L/D ratio just before the stall is 9.102769099.

Kettenhunde,

You express your superior intellect in a manner that suggests that I've stated something I did not.

I did not, for example, say that it is difficult to run a calculation.

If you say:


It's not hard to calculate, Josf.


You say something and then you add my name after you say something as if what you say has something to do with me.

My statement concerns a misnamed ratio called lift to drag. Your calculations appear to do something specific. You appear to claim that your calculation quantifies something specific and apparently that something specific is a ratio of lift to drag according to a vague innuendo supposing to be a scientific fact.

It, according to you, is not hard to calculate Josf.

What is it?


Yes L/D is tied to AoA. Those represent level flight. L/D is tied to design so the ratios will not change nor will the AoA a particular L/D ratio occurs change.

The plot thickens. Why do you associate my statement concerning elusive information with your calculations of level flight and whatever it is that you are calculating during level flight?

Why include me in your expressions of superior intellect?

If you read what I wrote you may note that my elusive information' concerns mostly the ballistic flight while the plane is going straight up with the engine on and the engine off. You may ignore that fact too.

If you read what I wrote you may note that my elusive information' comment concerns decelerating turn performance form high speed to slow speed. You may ignore that fact too.

You may, if you please, pop in a show how smart you are by calculating something concerning level flight and then you may add my name to your statements of superior intellect.

What has that to do with me? What has level flight performance have to do with the topic? Why include me in with your show of superior intellect? Can't you simply start a thread concerning level flight performance?

How about diving into your calculations?

Do your calculations include the drag from the radiators?

Do your calculations include the drag from the tail wheel?

Do your calculations include the drag from surface finish?

Do your calculations include the drag from windshield protrusion?

Do your calculations include the lift force produced from the fuselage?

Do your calculations include any change in the ratio of air mass thrust opposite the lift vector to air resistance opposite the velocity vector that occurs due to main wing incidence angle?

Do your calculations include any change in the efficiency of the aircraft to convert forward vector velocity into lift vector acceleration associated with trim drag or does your calculation assume that the plane is trimmed for the level flight speed at which your calculation applies?

Does your calculation merely calculate measurements of the main wing design according to some efficiency number attached to that specific airfoil?

Again; what does that have to do with me or the topic?


Reality Check:

Fw190A-8 (with and without 108 wing cannons):

A. L/D ratio
B. Prop disc drag during decelerating flight from 700 km/h to 0 km/h going straight up with throttle lever pulled back (closed) and throttle lever fully forward (open)

Spitfire VIII

A. Same as above
B. ditto

If the numbers are not elusive, then, the numbers will materialize in fact and those numbers will be accurate in fact.

Otherwise the reality of the fact will remain a fact - still.

The information remains elusive.

In context to the topic (not level flight performance):

Fw190A 8

Total drag force measured in Newtons (Pounds force will do) during a flight from 600 km/h to 0 km/h going straight up with the engine on and then with the engine off for the 20mm version and the 30 mm version of that fighter plane at normal combat configuration for that plane as an average representative measure?

That measure of total Drag force (only D and no L) will be more [Edit out less] than total thrust force for the entire flight because that flight will be decelerating at a rate that exceeds the rate of deceleration caused by gravity (in other words the aircraft will not reach the theoretical energy height in this flight even when the engine is on).

So the missing, the elusive, the absent information, in context, is:

Total Drag Force for a specific WWII fighter aircraft Fw190A-8 (and the addition of the 30mm cannons may be ignored by everyone except, perhaps, X3).

Total Drag Force (no L in ballistic flight):

TDF = BLANK

600 km/h to 0 km/h

If you only offer an average Drag Force for that entire flight, then, you should be able to Total the Drag force as a function of time and distance.

Why not simply eliminate the illusion and instead of playing like some authority be one.

What is the total (elusive) force of Drag in that flight for that plane and while this is so easy go ahead and provide the total Drag force for the Spitfire VIII and, of course, be accurate and not general or vague.

Total Drag force includes:

Drag caused by the Windshield
Drag caused by the Radiators
Drag caused by the fuselage
Drag caused by the tail surfaces
Drag caused by open wheel wells
Drag caused by surface irregularities
ETC.

Every little bit does count in the real world.

Every little bit adds up to a higher and higher Total Drag force (measurable as force) for every second the aircraft is resisted by the air mass for every millimeter the aircraft travels through the air mass.

Did I mention that the vertical flight does not include a force that accelerates the plane on the lift vector?

Elusive data:

L/D minus the L part:
Fw190A-8
Spitfire VIII

Going straight up from 600 km/h to 0 km/h

--------------------Total Drag Force Measured as Force
Fw190A-8---------------Blank
Spitfire VIII ------------Just as Blank

Moving on to Loaded Decelerations at 6 g from 600 km/h to corner speed (just above the stall):

--------------------------L/D including the L part
Fw190A-8 --------------------Blank
Spitfire VIII-------------------As Blank


Since this elusive data intends to quantify the relative efficiency of the entire aircraft design and not simply the wing design (including any loss or gains due to elastic deformation of the wing at 6 g), then, the accurate and elusive data includes any reduction of total air mass that could accelerate the aircraft on the lift vector caused by:

Radiators
Surface irregularities
Canopy size and shape
Fuselage size, shape, and design
Wheel well covers
Protrusions of any kind
Tail wheels
Main wing incidence angle
Contributions of acceleration on the lift vector associated with the production of prop thrust (engine on).
Contributions of deceleration on the velocity vector associated with the production of prop drag

Merely calculating an efficiency factor based upon the wing design and using that number to come up with a vague and misleading set of numbers for level flight performance isn't what I had in mind; so why include my name in your response on this topic in this forum?

--------------------------L/D including the L part
Fw190A-8 --------------------Blank
Spitfire VIII-------------------As Blank


L can be measured as a total force measurable as Newtons (or Pounds force) for a second of time (a snap shot of time) for either plane during any speed from 600 km/h to an as yet unknown (certainly not accurately known) corner speed for both planes.

D can be measured as a total force measurable as Newtons (or Pounds force) for a second of time (a snap shot of time) for either plane during any speed from 600 km/h to an as yet elusive corner speed for both planes.

L and D can be measured as the Total Force generated during the Loaded Deceleration from 600 km/h to the corner speeds of both planes (measurable as force).

If the Fw190 comes up with a poor ratio where much of the force generated goes into the Drag (decelerating the plane without producing lift) column and little force is accumulated in the Lift column, then, that can easily explain why the Fw190 can't turn very many degrees without slowing down very fast and, and this is important to understand, that ratio has nothing to do with weight (except where weight will cause the stall speed to increase).

Therefore if the corner speed of the Fw190 is higher than the Spitfire, if that proves to be a fact, then the time frame of Totaling Drag Force will be set to the plane with the higher stall speed.

Example (hypothetical):

--------------------------------Corner Speed (6 g)
Fw190A-8 -----------------------400 km/h
Spitfire VIII ---------------------390 km/h

Therefore the Total Force of Drag and the Total Force of Thrust for the loaded deceleration flight test goes from a start at 600 km/h (6 g) to 400 km/h (6 g) for both planes, where, the duration of the time where Lift force and Drag force is generated during that maximum performance turn both planes generate Lift force and both planes generate Drag force between the starting velocity of 600 km/h and the ending velocity (where the counting of those accumulated forces end) of 400 km/h.
The "Energy Bleeding" plane will be the one with the lower ratio of L/D where L represents the total force of lift generated during that loaded decleration and D is the total amount of force that isn't lifting the plane, rather, Drag Force only reduces velocity without any gain in acceleration on the lift vector, none, Drag Force resists against motion on the velocity vector.

Abstract example:

Good boy
10/1 =10

Where the Total Force of Lift is 10 and the Total Force of Drag is 1. The ratio is 10 and that plane Lifts much for a small loss in forward velocity.

Bad boy
1/10 = .1

Where the Total Force of Drag is 10 and the Total Force of Lift is 1. The ratio of .1 is a very high cost of forward velocity for very little turning.

Merely calculating the level flight L/D ratio while the engine is off (without calculating Prop Drag with the engine on/off, prop set to max RPM, prop set to Automatic, prop set to minimum RPM, etc.) is merely identifying a simple, vague, misleading, and irrelevant set of numbers.

What is the point?

Why include me?

Those are an impressive set of numbers! You must be much more intelligent than I can ever hope to be thank God.

I wouldn't see a need to respond to that impressive set of numbers had you left me out of them.

Again:

Here is reality:

The climb of the Fw-190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the Fw.190 is about 450 ft/min, better up to 25,000 feet.
50. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw.190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the Fw.10 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it.

Here is the game:

The climb of the Fw-190A-4 is inferior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are completely different, and the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably shallower. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the Fw.190 is about 450 ft/min, worse at all altitudes.
50. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the inferior climb of the Fw.190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the Spitfire draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Fw190 has no hope of catching it.

The error in the game is not a matter of degree. The game is opposite reality in certain areas for certain planes. It isn't the game engine, perhaps, since the P-47 is now an energy fighter that can't turn well at slow speeds while climbing when once the P-47 and the earlier models continue to be perhaps - double inferior (can't do anything but hit and run).

Modeling a large, low powered, bumpy, aerodynamically dirty, big winged Spitfire as an energy fighter (especially before the density of the plane increases with its increase in thrust force) compared to the smaller, greater thrust, cleaner, small winged and dense Fw190 is backwards and if the formula proves how backwards is forward, then, somewhere the garbage got in and, of course, garbage out.

M_Gunz
07-01-2007, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Are those for different AOA's and if so what is the increment and say, stall AOA of each
if I may ask?


Yes L/D is tied to AoA. Those represent level flight. L/D is tied to design so the ratios will not change nor will the AoA a particular L/D ratio occurs change.

I did not calculate the increment but it is not hard to do either. I can do that for you. You ever done unreliable airspeed calculations? It's similar.

Before someone claims, "All my airspeed calculations are unreliable!", that is a method you can use if your airspeed indicator fails. You pull out a calculator and SWAG the body AoA you want to achieve in order to fly at a specific airspeed.

For the FW190A8 the L/D ratio just before the stall is 9.102769099.

AT the stall it drops to nearly nothing as we are now falling and not flying.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"You ever done unreliable airspeed calculations?"

No, I am not AE though I have seen Lift equations and Drag equations and can follow what they
are doing as well as saying.

But when I see lists of L/D ratios only I figure they are tied to -something- and the only
something that makes sense to me in this case is AOA. It also makes sense there is some
step value of angle or percent of total so I took a shot on angle and *asked*.

It'd also be cool to know ballpark stall and Vmax AOA's.

M_Gunz
07-02-2007, 12:01 AM
Oh fer...........

When someone has top speed, engine power and prop efficiency then Drag = Thrust must count
for drag of all sources. It provides a check/scale to SWAG's that takes them well into the
ballpark.

Yeah, Crumpp who demonstrates his capabilities in the area he has his -degree- in vs........
who wants to call him a fake and demonstrates non-abilities at science and math in general
but is good at finding text with some of the same words in it to play ignorant with.

Gee, who to trust more?

Oh yeah, the guy that thinks that on forums no one should ever criticise HIS posts. Riiiight.

Kettenhunde
07-02-2007, 06:31 AM
But when I see lists of L/D ratios only I figure they are tied to -something- and the only
something that makes sense to me in this case is AOA. It also makes sense there is some
step value of angle or percent of total so I took a shot on angle and *asked*.

L/D is your glide ratio too. You can put them side by side. Which ever is the largest is the most efficient at that AoA.

Use the published data for a 2D wing for the airfoil type.

Focke Wulf Fw 190 Wurger

root = NACA 23015.3

For example, the NACA 23015.3 2D a goes from about -4 degrees at Vmax to 29 degrees at the stall. At L/Dmax it is ~21 degrees.

Therefore our AoA at Vmax, Vs, and L/Dmax:

Vs = L/D: 9.102769099
AoA = 29 + 4.522749835 = 33.5 degrees

L/Dmax = L/D = 12.5571036
AoA = 21 + 1.9413944 = 22.9 degrees

Vmax = L/D = 5.182745098
AoA = -4 + 0.419315184 = -3.58


tip = NACA 23009

Supermarine 361 Spitfire IX

Root=NACA 2213

tip = NACA 2209.4

All the best,

Crumpp

JG14_Josf
07-02-2007, 09:52 AM
Helofly,

How about a quick recap?

You ask a question concerning what is wrong with the game. I provide a possible answer based upon game data and historical data.

The game data involves vertical zoom climb performance where an engine off test has the Fw190A-8 traveling further through air resistance while decelerating from gravity from 600 km/h at the start of the race upwards.

When the game adds more engine thrust to the winner of that race the game slows the winner of that race down quicker. The Spitfire, in the game, speeds up with less engine power (assuming the game does anything at all according to accurate physics and accurate forces of thrust) compared to the Fw190A-8.

If that doesn't answer your question, then, I am a duck.

Quack

During the exchange of information a few of the volunteers have attacked me personally as if the information I provide is somehow my responsibility, for example, the tests done by other players that I link as proof that the game is wrong becomes my message and becomes my fault for linking that information.

I point that out. I point out how the information stands alone and there is no need to discredit the information with me and there is no need to discredit me with the information. On the other hand; if there is something wrong about what I wrote, then, that something that is wrong about what I wrote can be quoted and corrected.

Like this:

The Fw190A-8, in the game, goes lower than the Spitfire VIII from 600 km/h straight up because it has more thrust and that is wrong.

As a means of discrediting the above statement of fact the volunteer can quote the above and then move onto some vague level flight calculation based upon an efficiency factor concerning the wing design.

Which brings me back to Max:


Gee, who to trust more?

Oh yeah, the guy that thinks that on forums no one should ever criticise HIS posts. Riiiight.

Who elected anyone into the position of moral advisor?

Critical inspection of anything written is the aim of discussion. Critical inspection of me personally diverts attention away from critical inspection of what is written.

Like this:


The Fw190A-8, in the game, goes lower than the Spitfire VIII from 600 km/h straight up because it has more thrust and that is wrong.

A person could take the above and quote the above and then offer a critical analysis of the above quoted words, or, a person could simply ignore that and go after me personally because it is easier to attack the messenger. It is so much easier to attach the messenger, as a means of being critical, for the sake of being critical, that attacking the messenger' is as old as time and it has its own name, already, called attacking the messenger'.

I'd like to attack the message (and not the messenger) but in my case the message is an attack on me personally and nothing more.

The attack on me is now a comparative analysis of who can be trusted as if trust is needed to form a belief.

How about diving into the statement of fact:


The Fw190A-8, in the game, goes lower than the Spitfire VIII from 600 km/h straight up because it has more thrust and that is wrong.

That is wrong because the same test done without the engine has the Fw190A-8 going higher, so, adding more thrust makes it go lower relatively speaking relative to the Spitfire VIII which goes lower without the engine and higher when adding less thrust force.

Add more thrust force and the aircraft slows down faster compared to adding less thrust force and the aircraft slows down slower.

That is physical nonsense and the game models that physical nonsense.

What is this thread about?


Hi,

The question here is: what's wrong with thrust, drag and energy modeling.
I would like to discuss about how these things are modeled in the game compared to RL.
This is also a try to continue the discussion which was locked due to massive insults.
RL test and in-game tests are welcome, but try to discuss without insulting this time.

So the first question is: Is thrust too effectif in the game? In this case it would favor light planes with relatively high thrust.

Next question is: What influence does the inexistance of compressibility have on the outcome of a dive and zoom? And what about the fact that planes accelerate much too fast in this game.

...

Let's go

I'm going to do an analogy.

I am going to write something someone wrote and then write something that actually occurred.


Hi,

The question here is: what's wrong with someone discussing what is wrong with thrust, drag and energy modeling?

I would like to discuss about what is wrong with someone discussing how these things are modeled in the game compared to RL.
This is also a try to continue insulting someone discussing the topic which was locked due to massive insults. More of that is needed here please.
RL test and in-game tests are welcome, but try to realize that you will be insulted for bringing that type of data into this insulting flame fest and don't even thing about discussing without insulting this time.

So the first question is: Is the person guilty of something wrong if he tries to discuss how thrust is too effectif in the game? In this case it would favor light planes with relatively high thrust.

Next question is: What is wrong with someone who asks: What influence does the inexistance of compressibility have on the outcome of a dive and zoom? And what about the fact that planes accelerate much too fast in this game.

...

Let's go and get insulted again.

Now; I am all for the flame fest when that is the rule. I have a problem with the flame fest rule that only applies to a select few and the others' get a free ride or, even worse, the flame fest is allowed to go on and on until everyone involved is punished simply because they tried to defend themselves. The collective punishment method emboldens the least able to control their venom. The collective punishment method doesn't work for babies and it doesn't work for babies that are old enough to know better.

Here is the analogy part where I quote something and then change the wording around to communicate something relevant to the topic (and my lengthy recap):


The climb of the Fw-190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the Fw.190 is about 450 ft/min, better up to 25,000 feet.
50. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw.190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the Fw.10 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it.

Those are words written down by WWII Combat Fighter Pilots testing a real Fw190A-3 against a real Spitfire VB (1942) in June of 1942.

Here is the rewriting of history:


The climb of the Fw-190A-4 is inferior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are completely different, and the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably shallower. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the Fw.190 is about 450 ft/min, worse at all altitudes.
50. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the inferior climb of the Fw.190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the Spitfire draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Fw190 has no hope of catching it.

That is not an error of degree. That is an error of opposite. Where the historical aircraft climbed higher and at a steeper angle the game aircraft does the opposite. Where the real aircraft gains relative performance at higher speeds the game aircraft only simulates' this when the game aircraft reaches its top speed, where, under that top speed the game aircraft is superior. In other words: When the Fw190 is flying above the top speed of the Spitfire it then can zoom higher.

History:



50. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw.190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the Fw.10 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it.

Game error:

50. With both aircraft flying at the same high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Spitfire is even more marked as the Spitfire pulls up much quick and leaves the Fw190 behind in this type of zoom climb from level flight, where, both aircraft use lift force produced by the wings.
When both aircraft dive side by side the Spitfire VB (1941) reaches its top speed and starts shaking while the Fw190 continues to accelerate in the dive and reaches a higher speed out in front of the Spitfire VB and if both aircraft are then pulled up into a climb from the dive the Spitfire will reach a higher altitude leaving the Fw190 at a much lower altitude.

The last rendition of rewriting history should definitely be contrasted with the historical wording that described the historical conclusion observed and recorded in reverence to actual side by side flight tests of real WWII fighter aircraft in June 1942:


When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the Fw.10 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it.

Two planes tested side by side for relative performance capabilities. The words describe something happening in the real world. The words do not describe something happening in a game. The real world proved something to the people conducting the tests. The game tests, no matter how they are conducted, will prove the opposite when testing relative performance.

Relative performance does not include the Fw190 zoom climbing from the same altitude and starting at a higher velocity.


When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the Fw.10 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it.

It is conceivable to interpret that to mean a side by side start to race down into a dive followed by a leveling off period followed by a pulling up into a shallow climb where the Fw190 begins the climb from the same altitude and from a higher speed and that can be simulated' in the game where both aircraft are flying side by side and both aircraft start diving and the Spitfire reaches its top speed limit (a strangely low top speed for a plane with a strangely high climb rate) while the Fw190 continues to accelerate. Then both aircraft level off to their top speeds (slowing down from the dive top speed into the level flight top speeds) and then both planes start a shallow zoom climb at best climb angle.

What happens next?

The Fw190 dumps a lot of energy during the turn and the Spitfire VB (1941) motors past the Fw190 due to its better climb rate that is achieved at a steeper climb angle.


The climb of the Fw-190A-4 is inferior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are completely different, and the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably shallower. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the Fw.190 is about 450 ft/min, worse at all altitudes.
50. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the inferior climb of the Fw.190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the Spitfire draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Fw190 has no hope of catching it.

An engine horsepower to weight ratio advantage is not the same thing as an advantage in overcoming the force of drag with thrust force and momentum during a vertical zoom climb that minimizes drag force by avoiding the need to load up the wings with induced drag force.

Even so:


A fighters T/W is a fairly good indicator of its energy performance. This ratio is usually stated in terms of static sea-level thrust and a representative combat weight. For piston-engine aircraft a parameter known as "power loading," the ratio of aircraft weight to brake horsepower (normally maximum seal-level power), is used rather than T/W. Both of these measures may be misleading, however, since operation conditions of altitude and airspeed can affect two fighters in different ways...

...A fighter's aerodynamic efficiency, in particular its lift-to-drag ratio, is also vitally important to energy performance, especially at high G or high speed. In order to simplify this discussion, however, the term high T/W infers greater climb rate, faster acceleration, and higher maximum speed capability relative to the opponent.

That is from Fighter Combat by Robert Shaw.

Here is more:


Fighter Combat
by Robert Shaw
page 139

"The performance measures of most interest are turn performance (both instantaneous and sustained) and energy performance (climb, acceleration, and speed)."

page 141 - 142

"Encounters between a low-wing-loaded fighter and an enemy fighter with greater T/W are quite common. In this case each fighter has performance advantages and disadvantages relative to its opponent. The engagement strategy is for the pilot to exploit the opponent's most serious weaknesses while taking full advantage of his own fighter's greatest strengths."
"The low-wing-loaded fighter's greatest performance advantages are assumed to be good instantaneous turn performance, slow minimum speed, and tight sustained turn radius. In some cases this aircraft also might have a significant sustained-turn-rate advantage. Its weaknesses include inferior climb and acceleration performance under low-G conditions, and slower "top-end" speed."
"These characteristics are ideally suited to the use of angles tactics..."

"On the other hand, the pilot of a high-T/W fighter should concentrate on energy tactics when he is engaging a low-wing-loaded opponent."



Here is what the British had to say about the Fw190A-3 they captured and tested:


50. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled into a climb from a dive, the Fw 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it.

Dive. Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Fw 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages."

52. Manoeuvrability
The Fw 190 has better acceleration under all conditions of flight and this must obviously be useful during combat.


The performance measures of most interest are turn performance (both instantaneous and sustained) and energy performance (climb, acceleration, and speed).


energy performance (climb, acceleration, and speed)."


superior climb of the Fw

The Fw 190 has better acceleration under all conditions of flight and this must obviously be useful during combat.

The game does not get the top speed differences wrong. The Spitfire VB (1941) is definitely flying at a lower top speed than the Fw190A-4.

What would happen if the Spitfire VB and the Fw190A-4 started a zoom climb engines off going straight up at the same speed? Which plane would be resisted by air mass more and therefore slow down more in that pure vertical zoom climb?

What would happen to the same test conducted with the engines on where the Fw190 produces more thrust and more thrust to weight in reality?

What about the game?