PDA

View Full Version : question for tagert



AFJ_rsm
10-27-2007, 10:09 AM
ok since my patience is limited and I dont wanna read through pages of senseless bickering, or huge amounts of data I personally find superflous, please correct me if I haven't understood you correctly:

You maintain that the 109K4 outperforms the Spit +25 because of a better ROC. Correct?

I've seen your charts and I must say that it indeed appears to be like so.

Since you obviously have developed a skill at testing FM's out, I would like to ask you to perform the following tests (If you already have, please just repost the results, I admit I have read about 0.1% of your total posts online).

This is out of my own personal curiosity.

1. Max climb time at max allowable AoA before stall for each of those two planes.

2. Difference in altitude between both climb tests at high AoA before damage occurs in both planes.

3. I don't know if you can measure this somehow, but it would be interesting to see: torque differences and torque induced spin probabilty for each plane at high AoA, close to stall speed, aileron and elevator response at same conditions for each plane.


While it's true the 109k4 outclimbs the spit+25 at the settings you tested them, I believe the klownwagon accusations arise from the tests above. But as you said, I don't know for sure for that's a FEELING I share as well. I would like you and your testing skills to come up with results for those.


Thanks

AFJ_rsm
10-27-2007, 10:09 AM
ok since my patience is limited and I dont wanna read through pages of senseless bickering, or huge amounts of data I personally find superflous, please correct me if I haven't understood you correctly:

You maintain that the 109K4 outperforms the Spit +25 because of a better ROC. Correct?

I've seen your charts and I must say that it indeed appears to be like so.

Since you obviously have developed a skill at testing FM's out, I would like to ask you to perform the following tests (If you already have, please just repost the results, I admit I have read about 0.1% of your total posts online).

This is out of my own personal curiosity.

1. Max climb time at max allowable AoA before stall for each of those two planes.

2. Difference in altitude between both climb tests at high AoA before damage occurs in both planes.

3. I don't know if you can measure this somehow, but it would be interesting to see: torque differences and torque induced spin probabilty for each plane at high AoA, close to stall speed, aileron and elevator response at same conditions for each plane.


While it's true the 109k4 outclimbs the spit+25 at the settings you tested them, I believe the klownwagon accusations arise from the tests above. But as you said, I don't know for sure for that's a FEELING I share as well. I would like you and your testing skills to come up with results for those.


Thanks

heywooood
10-27-2007, 10:39 AM
chart monkey taunting should be discouraged...


that said, where's the popcorn?

Bearcat99
10-27-2007, 11:02 AM
Both of you know how easily these things can get out of hand right? So please... refrain from name calling and inuendo... keep Joe Friday in mind... Just the facts.... just the facts... and maybe this wont turn into one of those ban slinging events that this place has become famous for. Heyood put the pop corn away.. if this thing even moves the wrong way I'll lock it up so if you are sincere about just trying to get information then all posters in here act like it.

Just nipping things in the bud.

AFJ_rsm
10-27-2007, 11:04 AM
roger that

I just want to see the results, no discussion or name calling.

RegRag1977
10-27-2007, 12:36 PM
With all K4 advantages it must be easy to own Spit25 on equal terms during the fight. I don't ask for charts, i only want facts under the form of tracks!

I would like to learn how to fight those spitfire with a Me, so please share with the noob http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

msalama
10-27-2007, 12:46 PM
All ears here. And no popcorn, either.

AFJ_rsm
10-28-2007, 12:51 PM
bumping this from page 2

AKA_TAGERT
10-28-2007, 07:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AFJ_rsm:
ok since my patience is limited and I dont wanna read through pages of senseless bickering, or huge amounts of data I personally find superflous, please correct me if I haven't understood you correctly:

You maintain that the 109K4 outperforms the Spit +25 because of a better ROC. Correct?

I've seen your charts and I must say that it indeed appears to be like so.

Since you obviously have developed a skill at testing FM's out, I would like to ask you to perform the following tests (If you already have, please just repost the results, I admit I have read about 0.1% of your total posts online).

This is out of my own personal curiosity.

1. Max climb time at max allowable AoA before stall for each of those two planes.

2. Difference in altitude between both climb tests at high AoA before damage occurs in both planes.

3. I don't know if you can measure this somehow, but it would be interesting to see: torque differences and torque induced spin probabilty for each plane at high AoA, close to stall speed, aileron and elevator response at same conditions for each plane.


While it's true the 109k4 outclimbs the spit+25 at the settings you tested them, I believe the klownwagon accusations arise from the tests above. But as you said, I don't know for sure for that's a FEELING I share as well. I would like you and your testing skills to come up with results for those.


Thanks </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry for the late reply..

Didn't see this thread until VK_Dim posted a link to it in another thread.

Ill try and sum it up..

The real world data we have from WWII typically specifies the 'best climb speed' (BCS) not the 'best climb angle'.

Hence my testing does the same..

It is something the test pilot could do easily.. That is fly by the IAS gauge.. In that no WWII fighter that I know of had an AoA gauge to fly by even if they wanted to. Because of the way IAS remains constant as you climb, it makes it easy for the test pilot to climb at a constant IAS value. Where as it would be very hard to climb at a constant AoA, as noted, no gauge back than and that it change with ALT along the same lines as to why TAS changes with alt. Similar argument for trying to fly a constant pitch!

Which is not to say you couldn't Just that you would have to start out with a small value at low altitudes to account for the fact that they would be low at high altitudes. Which would not be the best ROC possible for the aircraft! And they wanted to know what the best ROC was!

If you did pick a constant AoA or pitch to fly.. you would have to varry IAS to maintain the constant AoA or pitch
Where as when you pick a constant IAS to fly you vary your pitch (and thus AoA) to maintain the constant IAS. In English, as you go higher, you drop the nose more and more to keep your speed up. That was something the test pilot found NATURAL to do, where as flying at a constant pitch was not.

Originally I did the 109K4 ROC tests using the BCS specified by Kurfurst for the 109K4, in that it was not called out in the RWD. As for the Spit I used the best climb speeds listed in the RWD. Later Brain32 did a test where he got a little better ROC using a 'different' BCS. At which point I re-did the 109K4 ROC using a 'different' BCS that got a little better ROC. That is to say, the real world BCS is not necessarily the in-game BCS. Which is not real surprising in that no sim is perfect.

So that is what has been up to now..

To answer your question, no one I know of has done a ROC test at constant pitch or AoA.. Most likely for the very reasons I stated above.

But know this, the AoA/pitch values (not constants) that Brian obtained during his ROC test at 'other' than RW BCS would be the best climb angles! Think of it as the peak.. On one side of that peak your not climbing as hard as you could, on the other side of the peak your climbing too hard and are loosing airspeed and will either stall or overheat prematurally.

Long story short.. A larger AoA would not result in a better ROC.. Just more heat due to less airflow and or a stall.. Think of it as the sweet spot.

PS it's late.. and I have been drinking.. So I may have said some things that may not the correct jargon.. But that is the jist of it.

Freelancer-1
10-28-2007, 08:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 AFJ_rsm:
ok since my patience is limited and I dont wanna read through pages of senseless bickering, or huge amounts of data I personally find superflous, please correct me if I haven't understood you correctly:

You maintain that the 109K4 outperforms the Spit +25 because of a better ROC. Correct?

I've seen your charts and I must say that it indeed appears to be like so.

Since you obviously have developed a skill at testing FM's out, I would like to ask you to perform the following tests (If you already have, please just repost the results, I admit I have read about 0.1% of your total posts online).

This is out of my own personal curiosity.

1. Max climb time at max allowable AoA before stall for each of those two planes.

2. Difference in altitude between both climb tests at high AoA before damage occurs in both planes.

3. I don't know if you can measure this somehow, but it would be interesting to see: torque differences and torque induced spin probabilty for each plane at high AoA, close to stall speed, aileron and elevator response at same conditions for each plane.


While it's true the 109k4 outclimbs the spit+25 at the settings you tested them, I believe the klownwagon accusations arise from the tests above. But as you said, I don't know for sure for that's a FEELING I share as well. I would like you and your testing skills to come up with results for those.


Thanks </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry for the late reply..

Didn't see this thread until VK_Dim posted a link to it in another thread.

Ill try and sum it up..

The real world data we have from WWII typically specifies the 'best climb speed' (BCS) not the 'best climb angle'.

Hence my testing does the same..

It is something the test pilot could do easily.. That is fly by the IAS gauge.. In that no WWII fighter that I know of had an AoA gauge to fly by even if they wanted to. Because of the way IAS remains constant as you climb, it makes it easy for the test pilot to climb at a constant IAS value. Where as it would be very hard to climb at a constant AoA, as noted, no gauge back than and that it change with ALT along the same lines as to why TAS changes with alt. Similar argument for trying to fly a constant pitch!

Which is not to say you couldn't Just that you would have to start out with a small value at low altitudes to account for the fact that they would be low at high altitudes. Which would not be the best ROC possible for the aircraft! And they wanted to know what the best ROC was!

If you did pick a constant AoA or pitch to fly.. you would have to varry IAS to maintain the constant AoA or pitch
Where as when you pick a constant IAS to fly you vary your pitch (and thus AoA) to maintain the constant IAS. In English, as you go higher, you drop the nose more and more to keep your speed up. That was something the test pilot found NATURAL to do, where as flying at a constant pitch was not.

Originally I did the 109K4 ROC tests using the BCS specified by Kurfurst for the 109K4, in that it was not called out in the RWD. As for the Spit I used the best climb speeds listed in the RWD. Later Brain32 did a test where he got a little better ROC using a 'different' BCS. At which point I re-did the 109K4 ROC using a 'different' BCS that got a little better ROC. That is to say, the real world BCS is not necessarily the in-game BCS. Which is not real surprising in that no sim is perfect.

So that is what has been up to now..

To answer your question, no one I know of has done a ROC test at constant pitch or AoA.. Most likely for the very reasons I stated above.

But know this, the AoA/pitch values (not constants) that Brian obtained during his ROC test at 'other' than RW BCS would be the best climb angles! Think of it as the peak.. On one side of that peak your not climbing as hard as you could, on the other side of the peak your climbing too hard and are loosing airspeed and will either stall or overheat prematurally.

Long story short.. A larger AoA would not result in a better ROC.. Just more heat due to less airflow and or a stall.. Think of it as the sweet spot.

PS it's late.. and I have been drinking.. So I may have said some things that may not the correct jargon.. But that is the jist of it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Drink more often http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

That was actually one of your clearest explanations I've read.

You've explained in one post what I've not been able to clearly understand in thread after thread. You (and others) might remember from time to time that there are a number of interested people who benefit from layman's explanations.

Thank you sir!

AKA_TAGERT
10-28-2007, 08:23 PM
ROTFL

No really.. I'm so drunk I fell of the chair! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

AFJ_rsm
10-29-2007, 05:57 AM
I fully understand what you're saying here.


I don't believe a larger AoA would achieve a better ROC. That's not what I'm trying to say. In fact the point of my thread is to take your attention off the RoC! There's more to RoC to a plane's characteristics to say it outperforms another!

Think of the COMBAT potential my tests would give the Spit. A higher AoA sustained for way more time. That gives you plenty of opportunity to defeat an oponent.

Consider my tests as tests of combat potential for the planes, do you believe the "blue crew" would have a valid reason to refer to the spit+25 as a klownwagon?

And by the way: Saying it's a klownwagon is not saying it's not historical, or saying that it is overmodelled. There was a video posted here of a british pilot saying "you know why the spit is better than the 109? Any idiot can fly a spitfire" (no offense to anyone here). Hopefully someone will have a link.

Do you believe there is a real REASON why people call it a klownwagon, when thinking under that perspective?

I guess what I'm trying to say is this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZAgT8KOLF8

AKA_TAGERT
10-29-2007, 09:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AFJ_rsm:
I fully understand what you're saying here.

I don't believe a larger AoA would achieve a better ROC. That's not what I'm trying to say. In fact the point of my thread is to take your attention off the RoC! There's more to RoC to a plane's characteristics to say it outperforms another!

Think of the COMBAT potential my tests would give the Spit. A higher AoA sustained for way more time. That gives you plenty of opportunity to defeat an oponent. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
When face with such 'what ifs' I look at it this way.. If the test you described is of value.. it would have been done in real life.. I don't know of any specific max AoA testing other than what would be revield by knowing the stall speed, in that the two are related.

I will say this.. in WWII ROC testing was a standard measure of general overall preformance in that it says more than just the ROC.. In general, if you have a good ROC you have a good power to weight ratio, it also says something about the expected turn rates.. The ROC was a good rule of thumb.. The ROC and the speed at alt test were like the minimum set of tests to do.. If there were problems.. like with the P39 they would do more specific testing.. but from the ROC and speed at alt tests alot could be determined.. that is to say get a good feel for how the plane stacks up againts other planes.. After WWII with the into of JETS they had to come up with other methods.. but in WWII those two tests where about all you needed

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AFJ_rsm:
Consider my tests as tests of combat potential for the planes, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Again, I still feel if such a test would have measured something useful they would have done it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AFJ_rsm:
do you believe the "blue crew" would have a valid reason to refer to the spit+25 as a klownwagon? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sure.. The only part I find funny is the blue crews inabilty to apply that lable to thier rides

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AFJ_rsm:
And by the way: Saying it's a klownwagon is not saying it's not historical, or saying that it is overmodelled. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Still.. The only part I find funny is the blue crews inabilty to apply that lable to thier rides

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AFJ_rsm:
There was a video posted here of a british pilot saying "you know why the spit is better than the 109? Any idiot can fly a spitfire" (no offense to anyone here). Hopefully someone will have a link. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So? Most of which is mute in that the hard vs. easy parts are more than likly lost in the PC game interface.. ie a forceless joystick sitting on your dest in an air conditioned room is a far cry from the real cockpit

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AFJ_rsm:
Do you believe there is a real REASON why people call it a klownwagon, when thinking under that perspective? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes.. it is called bias

In that all the things they said made it a clown wagon (balloon E, etc) have been shown to be less than thier ride (109K4) yet they don't call the 109K4 a clownwaon.. So a double standard driven by blue bias

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AFJ_rsm:
I guess what I'm trying to say is this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZAgT8KOLF8
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry at work, cant look at that link now

AFJ_rsm
10-29-2007, 10:50 AM
Fair enough

Thanks for your input.

I do believe those tests are of combat value. Those are the strengths I identify in the spit that put me at an advantage over the 109 when I'm flying the spit.


Don't know why there's no real life testing of them, maybe the way the FM's are modelled in game somehow give more importance to those aspects than what they had in RL.

Thanks

AKA_TAGERT
10-29-2007, 04:37 PM
It is still not clear to me what it is your saying the Spit can do..

Are you saying it can do an Su27 cobra type of move?

If so, that something like that would show up in a stall test.. Simply do a stall test between a Spit and 109 and I think you will find that they are simular and that the Spit does not do a cobra manuver