PDA

View Full Version : Existing P-47's climbrates are low



Buzzsaw-
08-27-2005, 09:54 AM
Salute

It is nice to hear that we may be getting a P-47 running at higher boost levels to replicate the 8th Air Force aircraft.

However, the existing game models of the P-47 seem to be climbing at too low a rate.

The following are some climb graphs from AMERICA'S HUNDRED THOUSAND, a very accurate reference source for American aircraft:

http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/9945/earlyp47climbaht6hm.jpg

http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/6500/p47dclimbandspeed7kd.jpg

The time to climb for the P-47D10 is shown on Graph 30, the time to climb for the D22 and D27 is shown on Graph 31. I attempted to duplicate the climbtimes shown on the graphs.

The D10's time to climb is at Normal power, ie. 1625 hp, 42 inchs MAP, 2550 RPM.

The D22's time to climb is shown at combat power, ie. 2300 hp, 58 inches MAP, 2700 RPM.

The D27's time to climb is shown at Normal power, ie. 1625 hp, 42.5 inches MAP, 2550 hp.

You can see the RPM and Boost settings for the various engines here on this chart:

http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/8996/p47enginedataaht7ct.jpg

The D10's normal power RPM and boost can be achieved in the game aircraft at 76% throttle setting, 94% prop pitch.

The D22's Combat power is the equivalent of full WEP 110% throttle, 100% pitch.

The D27's normal power RPM and boost can be achieved at 78% throttle setting, 94% prop pitch.

I did the climbtests on the Quick Mission Builder, Crimea map, starting at sea level at 300 kph. Cooling cowl settings (Rad opening) for the D10 and D27 were position 2, for the D22 position full open. (USAAF manuals call for cowl flaps to be open when climbing) The D22 overheated during its Combat power climb, but I did not reduce power, and at full open the oil temperature did not increase to the point damage occured.

The P-47 manual shows best climbspeeds at 165 mph IAS, (264 kph) below 15,000 ft, 155 IAS, (248 kph) above. I kept the climbspeeds to between 270 and 250 kph.

I limited the climbs to 20,000 ft.

Equivalents in meters are:

5000 ft: 1524 meters

10,000 ft: 3048 meters

15,000 ft: 4572 meters

20,000 ft: 6096 meters

I did the climbs and recorded the tracks. Then afterwards, went back, played the tracks and timed the climbs.

I got the following results:

P-47D10

Altitude ----- Historical climbtimes ----- Time to climb PF 4.01

5000 ft ---------- 2:00 ---------------------- 2:25

10,000 ft -------- 4:30 ---------------------- 5:10

15,000 ft -------- 7:20 ---------------------- 8:08

20,000 ft -------- 10:50 --------------------- 11:22


P-47D22

Altitude ----- Historical climbtimes ----- Time to climb PF 4.01

5000 ft ---------- 1:45 ---------------------- 1:45

10,000 ft -------- 3:35 ---------------------- 3:35

15,000 ft -------- 5:00 ---------------------- 5:40

20,000 ft -------- 7:00 ---------------------- 8:00


P-47D27

Altitude ----- Historical climbtimes ----- Time to climb PF 4.01

5000 ft ------- 2:00 --------------------- 2:24

10,000 ft ----- 4:00 --------------------- 4:55

15,000 ft ----- 6:10 --------------------- 7:35

20,000 ft ----- 8:40 --------------------- 10:32


All the aircraft are losing climbrate too fast at higher altitudes. The D10 and D27 are climbing too slow at low altitudes as well.

Buzzsaw-
08-27-2005, 09:54 AM
Salute

It is nice to hear that we may be getting a P-47 running at higher boost levels to replicate the 8th Air Force aircraft.

However, the existing game models of the P-47 seem to be climbing at too low a rate.

The following are some climb graphs from AMERICA'S HUNDRED THOUSAND, a very accurate reference source for American aircraft:

http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/9945/earlyp47climbaht6hm.jpg

http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/6500/p47dclimbandspeed7kd.jpg

The time to climb for the P-47D10 is shown on Graph 30, the time to climb for the D22 and D27 is shown on Graph 31. I attempted to duplicate the climbtimes shown on the graphs.

The D10's time to climb is at Normal power, ie. 1625 hp, 42 inchs MAP, 2550 RPM.

The D22's time to climb is shown at combat power, ie. 2300 hp, 58 inches MAP, 2700 RPM.

The D27's time to climb is shown at Normal power, ie. 1625 hp, 42.5 inches MAP, 2550 hp.

You can see the RPM and Boost settings for the various engines here on this chart:

http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/8996/p47enginedataaht7ct.jpg

The D10's normal power RPM and boost can be achieved in the game aircraft at 76% throttle setting, 94% prop pitch.

The D22's Combat power is the equivalent of full WEP 110% throttle, 100% pitch.

The D27's normal power RPM and boost can be achieved at 78% throttle setting, 94% prop pitch.

I did the climbtests on the Quick Mission Builder, Crimea map, starting at sea level at 300 kph. Cooling cowl settings (Rad opening) for the D10 and D27 were position 2, for the D22 position full open. (USAAF manuals call for cowl flaps to be open when climbing) The D22 overheated during its Combat power climb, but I did not reduce power, and at full open the oil temperature did not increase to the point damage occured.

The P-47 manual shows best climbspeeds at 165 mph IAS, (264 kph) below 15,000 ft, 155 IAS, (248 kph) above. I kept the climbspeeds to between 270 and 250 kph.

I limited the climbs to 20,000 ft.

Equivalents in meters are:

5000 ft: 1524 meters

10,000 ft: 3048 meters

15,000 ft: 4572 meters

20,000 ft: 6096 meters

I did the climbs and recorded the tracks. Then afterwards, went back, played the tracks and timed the climbs.

I got the following results:

P-47D10

Altitude ----- Historical climbtimes ----- Time to climb PF 4.01

5000 ft ---------- 2:00 ---------------------- 2:25

10,000 ft -------- 4:30 ---------------------- 5:10

15,000 ft -------- 7:20 ---------------------- 8:08

20,000 ft -------- 10:50 --------------------- 11:22


P-47D22

Altitude ----- Historical climbtimes ----- Time to climb PF 4.01

5000 ft ---------- 1:45 ---------------------- 1:45

10,000 ft -------- 3:35 ---------------------- 3:35

15,000 ft -------- 5:00 ---------------------- 5:40

20,000 ft -------- 7:00 ---------------------- 8:00


P-47D27

Altitude ----- Historical climbtimes ----- Time to climb PF 4.01

5000 ft ------- 2:00 --------------------- 2:24

10,000 ft ----- 4:00 --------------------- 4:55

15,000 ft ----- 6:10 --------------------- 7:35

20,000 ft ----- 8:40 --------------------- 10:32


All the aircraft are losing climbrate too fast at higher altitudes. The D10 and D27 are climbing too slow at low altitudes as well.

Kurfurst__
08-27-2005, 11:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It is nice to hear that we may be getting a P-47 running at higher boost levels to replicate the 8th Air Force aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would be nice to see *ANY* evidence of P-47s running at 'higher boost' in the 8th AAF than currently modelled.

Seems like the fantasy P-38Late feels lonely, BigKahuna had gave new lies to Oleg, and we can except the 'P-47D Late' to satisfy the unlimited need of Yankwhiners for more performance than actually existed.

Sad how a good sim is being turned into arcade for the sake of the natioalism of a few, isn`t it...?

lrrp22
08-27-2005, 11:31 AM
Sigh... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif


.

Kurfurst__
08-27-2005, 11:35 AM
Oh, as I guessed. No evidence, just smokescreen.

Can I ask something? Why can`t you guys just put up with the historical performance, why you have to invent one-sided stories of 'proper' boosts instead? Will it never end?

TAGERT.
08-27-2005, 11:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

It is nice to hear that we may be getting a P-47 running at higher boost levels to replicate the 8th Air Force aircraft.

However, the existing game models of the P-47 seem to be climbing at too low a rate.

The following are some climb graphs from AMERICA'S HUNDRED THOUSAND, a very accurate reference source for American aircraft:

http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/9945/earlyp47climbaht6hm.jpg

http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/6500/p47dclimbandspeed7kd.jpg

The time to climb for the P-47D10 is shown on Graph 30, the time to climb for the D22 and D27 is shown on Graph 31. I attempted to duplicate the climbtimes shown on the graphs.

The D10's time to climb is at Normal power, ie. 1625 hp, 42 inchs MAP, 2550 RPM.

The D22's time to climb is shown at combat power, ie. 2300 hp, 58 inches MAP, 2700 RPM.

The D27's time to climb is shown at Normal power, ie. 1625 hp, 42.5 inches MAP, 2550 hp.

You can see the RPM and Boost settings for the various engines here on this chart:

http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/8996/p47enginedataaht7ct.jpg

The D10's normal power RPM and boost can be achieved in the game aircraft at 76% throttle setting, 94% prop pitch.

The D22's Combat power is the equivalent of full WEP 110% throttle, 100% pitch.

The D27's normal power RPM and boost can be achieved at 78% throttle setting, 94% prop pitch.

I did the climbtests on the Quick Mission Builder, Crimea map, starting at sea level at 300 kph. Cooling cowl settings (Rad opening) for the D10 and D27 were position 2, for the D22 position full open. (USAAF manuals call for cowl flaps to be open when climbing) The D22 overheated during its Combat power climb, but I did not reduce power, and at full open the oil temperature did not increase to the point damage occured.

The P-47 manual shows best climbspeeds at 165 mph IAS, (264 kph) below 15,000 ft, 155 IAS, (248 kph) above. I kept the climbspeeds to between 270 and 250 kph.

I limited the climbs to 20,000 ft.

Equivalents in meters are:

5000 ft: 1524 meters

10,000 ft: 3048 meters

15,000 ft: 4572 meters

20,000 ft: 6096 meters

I did the climbs and recorded the tracks. Then afterwards, went back, played the tracks and timed the climbs.

I got the following results:

P-47D10

Altitude ----- Historical climbtimes ----- Time to climb PF 4.01

5000 ft ---------- 2:00 ---------------------- 2:25

10,000 ft -------- 4:30 ---------------------- 5:10

15,000 ft -------- 7:20 ---------------------- 8:08

20,000 ft -------- 10:50 --------------------- 11:22


P-47D22

Altitude ----- Historical climbtimes ----- Time to climb PF 4.01

5000 ft ---------- 1:45 ---------------------- 1:45

10,000 ft -------- 3:35 ---------------------- 3:35

15,000 ft -------- 5:00 ---------------------- 5:40

20,000 ft -------- 7:00 ---------------------- 8:00


P-47D27

Altitude ----- Historical climbtimes ----- Time to climb PF 4.01

5000 ft ------- 2:00 --------------------- 2:24

10,000 ft ----- 4:00 --------------------- 4:55

15,000 ft ----- 6:10 --------------------- 7:35

20,000 ft ----- 8:40 --------------------- 10:32


All the aircraft are losing climbrate too fast at higher altitudes. The D10 and D27 are climbing too slow at low altitudes as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Send me your *.ntrk files and I can plot the data for you and all the other associated varialbes.

That is the *.ntrk files, not the *.trk files! The ntrk files are recorded by assiging an key to the QUICK RECORD. Send your files to

naca_testing@yahoo.com

As for Kurfurstie.. Just ignor that guy, he is just here to make sure no US planes get modled correctly to give the obsolite Lw stuff an edge.

SkyChimp
08-27-2005, 11:45 AM
Kurfurst, why don't you start a campaign to bring the Bf-109K-4 climb rate under control? It's the most ahistorical plane in this game, a real fantasy job. Yet you seem to be perfectly content with it.

Don't be a hypocrit. Ask Oleg to lower the Bf-109K-4's climb rate.

p1ngu666
08-27-2005, 12:10 PM
lets keep this on topic, p47late and k4 climb should have there own seporate threads http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

nice graphs buzzsaw http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Kurfurst__
08-27-2005, 12:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Kurfurst, why don't you start a campaign to bring the Bf-109K-4 climb rate under control? It's the most ahistorical plane in this game, a real fantasy job. Yet you seem to be perfectly content with it.

Don't be a hypocrit. Ask Oleg to lower the Bf-109K-4's climb rate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well anybody who search my posts will find me state dozens of times that it`s off. The shape isn`t correct either, it`s like a single speed engine. That`s one side of the coin, since all planes we have are massively 'fantasy' in terms of RoC as everyone knows, the Mustangs are no exception, Spitfires either, FW190`s, Lavochkin etc.

It`s not much of a trouble until it`s relatively correct to each other. And as nothing could climb with the 109K, it`s all correct, only the Spit9 and La-7 comes close, doing totally ahistorical 28 and over m/sec climbs, but it`s still relatively correct, ie. almost as good as the 109K.

Now let`s see the evidence for overboosted P-47s, and also for the exintence of the fantasy P-38L late which Kahuna and friends lied into the sim.

lrrp22
08-27-2005, 12:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Now let`s see the evidence for overboosted P-47s, and also for the exintence of the fantasy P-38L late which Kahuna and friends lied into the sim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You've already seen it...

A US Air Corps. memorandum from the Chief, Petroleum Section to the Chief, Supply Divison, US Army dated 11 July, 1944, Subject: Grade 150 Aviation Fuel, stipulated the following:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The following limiting War Emergency Rating Manifold Pressures have been established by the Eighth Air Force for the different aircraft:

Aircraft Old W.E.R. New W.E.R.
P-38J 60" 66"
P-47D without water 52" 62"
P-47D with water 57" 67"
P-51B 67" 72"

It is thought that the above manifold pressures may even be increased to some extent using 150 Grade fuel, and roughly speaking the increase in speed of fighter aircraft at altitudes below 20,000 ft. is approximately 25 miles per hour. The increase in the rate of climb is approximately 800 ft. per minute. In addition, manifold pressures can be used at the higher ratings without danger of incipient detonation; this gives a greater factor of safety.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kurfurst__
08-27-2005, 12:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
You've already seen it...

A US Air Corps. memorandum from the Chief, Petroleum Section to the Chief, Supply Divison, US Army dated 11 July, 1944, Subject: Grade 150 Aviation Fuel, stipulated the following:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

The following limiting War Emergency Rating Manifold Pressures have been established by the Eighth Air Force for the different aircraft.

Aircraft Old W.E.R. New W.E.R.
P-38J 60" 66"
P-47D without water 52" 62"
P-47D with water 57" 67"
P-51B 67" 72"

It is thought that the above manifold pressures may even be increased to some extent using 150 Grade fuel, and roughly speaking the increase in speed of fighter aircraft at altitudes below 20,000 ft. is approximately 25 miles per hour. The increase in the rate of climb is approximately 800 ft. per minute. In addition, manifold pressures can be used at the higher ratings without danger of incipient detonation; this gives a greater factor of safety.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



That`s some text on a BBS, not a document scan that would have some credibility. Anyone can create such proof, see:


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The following new limits for War Emergency Rating Manifold Pressures are to be established by the Eighth Air Force for the following aircraft. These are in place previous figures given.

Aircraft Old W.E.R. New W.E.R.
P-38J 60" 122.13"
P-47D without water 52" 10"
P-47D with water 57" 10"
P-51B 67" 99"

Up to this date, 2338 P-38s, two and a half P-47s, and all P-51s had been converted.

Yours truly,

Mickey Mouse
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can see the P-47D was downrated to 10" Hg. Let`s model it this way.

So let`s see the original one, instead of whoever`s text on a BBS.


It`s says with water injection for the P-47D. But we already have P-47D with water injection in the game, lrrp2, so we already have the boost you are asking for. You are just asking for even more.

As for the P-38L 'late', I can`t see any. You and Kahuna claimed the P-38L existed with 1725 HP and lied to Oleg there were 'over 2000 in service'.
Here I can see P-38 J, and it`s only cleared for 66"Hg, that`s not 70" which the fantast P-38L has in the game.

Neither boost were in service use, only in operational trials. It`s worthy to mention that lrrp2 is qouting from the research of Neil Stirling, but 'forgets' to also include Neil`s comments on the level of use of high boost P-47s :

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Neil Stirling said at AAW2 Forums :

The story so far.

As of May 44 there were 3 sqns of Spitfire Lf IX at +25lbs, 2 sqns of P47's at 66"hg and 1 P38 sqn at 65"hg all using 150 grade.

June 44, 8th Airforce UK based fighters convert to 150 grade.

British sqns using 150 grade as of 12,8,44.

4 Tempest V sqns ( found that 150 grade not required for +11lbs)
4 Mustang III sqns
2 Spitfire LF IX sqns, being replaced by Mk XIV's
3 Spitfire XIV sqns
2 Mossi XIX sqns
1 Mossi XIII sqn

Consumption 150 of grade as of 5,8,44 7000 tons per month.

These aircraft were not exclusively used for V1 interception.
For example.
As of 16,6,44 a total of 9 +25lb Spit LF IX had been lost over enemy territory.
14,8,44 306 sqn Mustang III's shoot down 3 109's and 1 190.

The Ministry of Aircraft Production directed Rolls Royce Ltd. in Requisition MER/388/43 dated 24th August 1944 as follows:

I am directed to inform you that Headquarters, Air Defense of Great Britain require all Packard Merlin V.1650-7 engines to be modified to operate at 25 lbs.boost in accordance with Rolls Royce Rectification Schedule F.2 Issue 3.

ADGB letter 18 September 44 gives notification to revert to 130 grade due to (at the time) no 150 grade on the continent and no more V1's.

20,11,44 SHAEF clear 2nd TAF to use 150 grade.

Appprox 25 sqn's Spit LF IX, 5 sqn's Spit XVI and 5 sqn's Spit XIV to be modified.

Production requirements as of 2,12,44 between 33,000 and 35,000 tons per month.

2 sqn's ADGB Mossi XXX use 150 grade +25lbs boost and ejector exhausts

US 8th UK based fighters only, use 150 grade.

April 45 Spit XVI and Mossi XXX ordered to revert to 130 grade.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


ONLY 2 Squadrons of high boost P-47s and only a single squadron of 66" P-38J, which is way far from the claimed 'over 2000'.

There were two dozen P-47s at higher boost vs. hundreds and hundreds of P-47s running at their normal boost, yet Oleg is told again that was the norm. Nothing is enough, it seems.

It`s also hard to imagine that single P-38J squadron would hold 'over 2000' P-38Ls, what Oleg was told...


Just to put things into context. We are having Yankwhiners crying again for boosts that never were in service in any meaningful number to be standard in the sim.

TAGERT.
08-27-2005, 12:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
That`s one side of the coin, since all planes we have are massively 'fantasy' in terms of RoC as everyone knows </div></BLOCKQUOTE>All planes?

All I know for sure is you have not presenting anything showing *all* real life ROC data let alone *all* the in-game ROC data.

Thus, your *all* planes statment is false.

As for *all* planes having a massively 'fantasy' RoC, that may be true for the 109K, but it is NOT true for the P38J and P38L.

The P38J/L fall far below thier REAL WORD TTC/ROCs! They are a min late to the 20kft foot mark.

The P38L LATE on the other hand just barly meets it's real world TTC/ROC numbers.

Thus none of the P38 EXCEED thier TTC/ROC, thus they do NOT fall in the catagory of having a "massively 'fantasy' RoC" like the 109K.

lrrp22
08-27-2005, 12:52 PM
Sorry Isegrim, but the R-2800-59 with water injection was eventually cleared for 64" Hg for 2600 HP on 100/130 grade. That was raised to 67" Hg on 100/150 grade on 11 July 44. I believe it was raised again to 70" Hg in late '44.

Either way, 70" Hg was common (though not official) very early on in the game. It was even in use in the MTO- 325th FG ace Art Fieldler on his 15th AAF group's WEP setting for its P-47's during February/March of '44:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I mention this as when we had the P-47s, we set up the WEP to 70" vs the normal 57 or 56 inches. This of course caused the factory rep many headaches but our philosophy was if you were about to buy the farm, you might as well get all possible power from the engine.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's not a thing in Neil's research tha contradicts anything I've said.

There well may have been 2 P-47 squadrons at 66" Hg in May of '44, but by July there were at least 12 P-47 squadrons running at least 67", and probably more.

.

Kurfurst__
08-27-2005, 01:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:
As for *all* planes having a massively 'fantasy' RoC, that may be true for the 109K, but it is NOT true for the P38J and P38L. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All I know for sure is you have not presenting anything showing real life ROC data for the P-38J, let alone the in-game ROC data.

So you may either tell the truth or lie.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">hus none of the P38 EXCEED thier TTC/ROC, thus they do NOT fall in the catagory of having a "massively 'fantasy' RoC" like the 109K. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All I know for sure is you have not presenting anything showing real life ROC data for the 109K, let alone the in-game ROC data.

So you may either tell the truth or lie, or being just another biased Yankwhiner, who claims overmodelled Axis planes without any proof and thus any credibility.

Kurfurst__
08-27-2005, 01:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
Sorry Isegrim, but the R-2800-59 with water injection was eventually cleared for 64" Hg for 2600 HP on 100/130 grade.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Source please for 64" equalling 2600 HP.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That was raised to 67" Hg on 100/150 grade on 11 July 44. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It required 150 grade fuel. And was only used by two dozen planes out of hundreds, r NO MORE.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I believe it was raised again to 70" Hg in late '44. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, YOU believe that.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Either way, 70" Hg was common (though not official) very early on in the game. It was even in use in the MTO- 325th FG ace Art Fieldler on his 15th AAF group's WEP setting for its P-47's during February/March of '44:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I mention this as when we had the P-47s, we set up the WEP to 70" vs the normal 57 or 56 inches. This of course caused the factory rep many headaches but our philosophy was if you were about to buy the farm, you might as well get all possible power from the engine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How did they use 70" Hg, if they had only 130 grade fuel, and already 67" required 150 grade fuel?


OK, so what is happening that a new fantasy plane entering the sim, Art Fieldler`s single specmodded P-47, hitting Mach 2, based on the a few decades old memory of a vet, and naturally there`s no official confirmation anywhere.

Where did I seen this... AHA! The fantasy P-38L(OL), by Kahuna and friends... they told Oleg over 2000 was in service... in reality, none. They made the 'facts' up.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There's not a thing in Neil's research tha contradicts anything I've said.There well may have been 2 P-47 squadrons at 66" Hg in May of '44, but by July there were at least 12 P-47 squadrons running at least 67", and probably </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Source please for "at least 12 P-47 squadrons running at least 67".

Neil Stirling, who has been reasearching the 150 grade use for about 6 years by now, says only 2 Squadrons.

Buzzsaw-
08-27-2005, 01:30 PM
Kurfurst

You're too lazy to read the other thread which discusses in detail the boost used in various aircraft and in the various RAF or USAAF Airforces.

Instead you come into this thread, whining on the subject, expecting those who have posted extenively elsewhere to have to re-post all the data that already makes crystal clear that which Airforces used what boost, what fuel and when.

If you want to discuss the issue of 100/150 fuel as well as USAAF/RAF boost, take it to the thread which has already dealt with the matter in detail.

It starts here:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/9991053533/p/37

Others who want to agree/disagree with my findings on the existing P-47's climbrate, please post here.

Kurfurst__
08-27-2005, 01:51 PM
To me it seems it`s always the same people who make the same exaggrevated claims about US/RAF ratings, but never produce any proof themselves.

I checked the thread, I already seen it, but there`s nothing apart that. Lrrp2, Kahuna making claims about boost ratings, arguing with Crumpp that nothing produced in Germany during WW2 could stand a comparision with Allied equipment and the rest of the nonsesne. Worser, there no backing up of the claims, either here, or there.

Business as usual.

Aaron_GT
08-27-2005, 01:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">All the aircraft are losing climbrate too fast at higher altitudes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That seems to be pretty much across the board, so I presume that there are some things to work out in the 4.x FM. Maybe 4.02 will go some way to correcting this (fingers crossed).

TAGERT.
08-27-2005, 02:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
All I know for sure is you have not presenting anything showing real life ROC data for the P-38J, let alone the in-game ROC data. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Which shows what you know
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/5731071933

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
So you may either tell the truth or lie. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>And you can not avoid the fact that you have not presented anything that proves all planes have "massively 'fantasy' RoC" by trying to start a tanget topic. Typical Izzie tatics, when caught in a lie, he just avoids talking about it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
All I know for sure is you have not presenting anything showing real life ROC data for the 109K, let alone the in-game ROC data. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I was basing that statment on what you said, ie

"Well anybody who search my posts will find me state dozens of times that it`s off"

So, where you lying about that too?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
So you may either tell the truth or lie, or being just another biased Yankwhiner, who claims overmodelled Axis planes without any proof and thus any credibility. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Im not the one that said it about the 109K, you were, I simply pointed out how wrong you were to say that all plans have "massively 'fantasy' RoC" in that the P38s clearly dont.

Badsight.
08-27-2005, 02:20 PM
Kufurst should stop trying to thread wreck & stick to topic

kubanloewe
08-27-2005, 02:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">All the aircraft are losing climbrate too fast at higher altitudes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That seems to be pretty much across the board, so I presume that there are some things to work out in the 4.x FM. Maybe 4.02 will go some way to correcting this (fingers crossed). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, the heightmodell iss not very good in FB, all planes feels very heavy at height especially the TA152 f.e. which was designed for this is always near stall if pull a bit the elevator. You can beat me if you want but imho the heightmodell in cfs3 with Firepower iss better in this aspect and P47 as P51 are real beasts at height whereas a 190 loses so much power that itÔ┬┤s outclassed; 109G10 is a bit better in this aspect but all Planes can really fly there and maneouver. In FB it feels like the only thing what happend at climbing is that the weight of the Plane increases continiously and in result of this Planes with high wingload are faster near stalling than others at height.
Take a BF110G with 2x1475PS and 7,7t weight normal loadout and fly to 8000m; pretty hard in FB ! The bad 109G6early was in real a good Fighter at 6-8000m so it described Eric Brown and IÔ┬┤m not wondering about this because the LW needs this against the high B17Ô┬┤s. In FB I really like the G6 better near 2-3000m than in 7-8000m. And for me itÔ┬┤s not a problem to outclimb a G6 in a P47D10 in a bit lower angle but much faster and so the rate of climb is near the 109 or more. But iÔ┬┤m not up to date with since the newest Patch because iÔ┬┤m often fly other games such as "Targetware".

Kurfurst__
08-27-2005, 02:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
All I know for sure is you have not presenting anything showing real life ROC data for the P-38J, let alone the in-game ROC data. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Which shows what you know
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/5731071933 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. The above thread is not presenting in it anything showing real life ROC data for the P-38J, let alone the in-game ROC data - just your fantasyies, of which you have plenty to share but hardly anybody seems to be interested in thread to learn about them - it`s all just endless monologes of Tagert... are you perhaps related with... your uncle Dolpie ?

In short, the typical useless Tagert overblown ego demonstration. Man, you have to compansate for a LOT ! The internet is a good place for your miserable kind.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
So you may either tell the truth or lie. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And you can not avoid the fact that you have not presented anything that proves all planes have "massively 'fantasy' RoC" by trying to start a tanget topic. Typical Izzie tatics, when caught in a lie, he just avoids talking about it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Typical Tagert tactics, when faced the truth, he replies something that doesn`t make any sense. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
We use to say here "Crazy wind blows from the crazy hole".

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
All I know for sure is you have not presenting anything showing real life ROC data for the 109K, let alone the in-game ROC data. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was basing that statment on what you said, ie

"Well anybody who search my posts will find me state dozens of times that it`s off"

So, where you lying about that too? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well it seems Skychimp says I have not stated yet that the Bf 109K is overmodelled in RoC, while you say I am stating it.

One of you must be wrong. And you just argued you can`t be wrong. So you say Skychmip is wrong.

Thank you for assisting me in proving that I was right, that was the goal and you fell for the trap I set.. It`s always a pleasure to use my intellectual inferior to do the job instead of me. Good boy!


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Im not the one that said it about the 109K, you were, I simply pointed out how wrong you were to say that all plans have "massively 'fantasy' RoC" in that the P38s clearly dont. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you mistook me with Skychimp. He made the statement about the 109K`s RoC being overmodelled... Given how wrong you used to be on just about everything you state, that can be forgiven, you rarely know anything about the matters you make your statements about.

Now if I think about it, you are similiar. You both claim the 109K is overmodelled in RoC, but neither of you is showing real life ROC data for the 109K, let alone the in-game ROC data.

You just claim it`s overmodelled.

Hmm, let`s try this attitude...

P-38J is overmodelled in Rate of Climb.
P-40E is overmodelled in Rate of Climb.
Spit5 is overmodelled in Rate of Climb.
Spit9 is overmodelled in Rate of Climb.
P-47D is overmodelled in Rate of Climb.
P-51B is overmodelled in Rate of Climb.
P-51C is overmodelled in Rate of Climb.
P-51D is overmodelled in Rate of Climb.
P-39N is overmodelled in Rate of Climb.

Hey, did I miss something when using the Skychimp-Tagert method of proving things?

Kurfurst__
08-27-2005, 02:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
Kufurst should stop trying to thread wreck & stick to topic </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Badsight should stop with his obvious, short sighted agenda.

p1ngu666
08-27-2005, 03:48 PM
kurfy, your dragging this offtopic http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

k4 issue is the ROC doesnt decay like it should with height.

to copy k4s roc irl would require a highly complex, and ineffiecent supercharger/engine design.

ROC is about 30metres a second till 5000metres ingame, think irl the ROC had dropped by 1/4 to a 1/3rd.

dont have all the graphs handy about it, but thats what i remmbered offhand.

kurfy has stated the k4's climb is overdone on several occasions i think. dont think hes started a thread on it tho

Aaron_GT
08-27-2005, 03:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yep, the heightmodell iss not very good in FB, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was supposed to be improved for the 4.x FMs, but perhaps there is still some work to be done. It might be as much the engine model and how the HP decays with altitude as well, of course.

lrrp22
08-27-2005, 03:57 PM
Do your own research, Isegrim. I'm tired of reposting the same evidence over and over again, just because you're not comfortable with the results.

-If you want to see the R-2800-59 at 64" Hg and 2600 HP, check AHT.

-Neil said 2 squadrons were using 100/150 grade in May. By July the entire VIII FC was using 100/150 grade. Twelve squadrons were flying the P-47D from July to October of '44.

Go ahead, Isegrim/Kurfurst, ask Neil whether or not he disagrees with me.

-If you want to know which twelve squadrons used at least 67" Hg, then figure out which four VIII Fighter Command groups were equipped with the P-47 after 11 July '44. Heck- since I'm such a nice guy, I'll do it for you: the 56th, 78th, 353rd and 356th. That's 300 P-47D's, give or take, running at least 67" Hg WEP.

-The ETO and MTO P-47 units that used 70" Hg on 100/130 did because they figured out that the engine could take that kind of stress, even without 100/150 grade.


Now, scurry along and do some research before you indulge us with yet another of your tirades...


.

TAGERT.
08-27-2005, 04:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
All I know for sure is you have not presenting anything showing real life ROC data for the P-38J, let alone the in-game ROC data. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Which shows what you know
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/5731071933 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. The above thread is not presenting in it anything showing real life ROC data for the P-38J, let alone the in-game ROC data - just your fantasyies, of which you have plenty to share but hardly anybody seems to be interested in thread to learn about them - it`s all just endless monologes of Tagert... are you perhaps related with... your uncle Dolpie ?

In short, the typical useless Tagert overblown ego demonstration. Man, you have to compansate for a LOT ! The internet is a good place for your miserable kind.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
So you may either tell the truth or lie. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And you can not avoid the fact that you have not presented anything that proves all planes have "massively 'fantasy' RoC" by trying to start a tanget topic. Typical Izzie tatics, when caught in a lie, he just avoids talking about it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Typical Tagert tactics, when faced the truth, he replies something that doesn`t make any sense. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
We use to say here "Crazy wind blows from the crazy hole".

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
All I know for sure is you have not presenting anything showing real life ROC data for the 109K, let alone the in-game ROC data. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was basing that statment on what you said, ie

"Well anybody who search my posts will find me state dozens of times that it`s off"

So, where you lying about that too? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well it seems Skychimp says I have not stated yet that the Bf 109K is overmodelled in RoC, while you say I am stating it.

One of you must be wrong. And you just argued you can`t be wrong. So you say Skychmip is wrong.

Thank you for assisting me in proving that I was right, that was the goal and you fell for the trap I set.. It`s always a pleasure to use my intellectual inferior to do the job instead of me. Good boy!


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Im not the one that said it about the 109K, you were, I simply pointed out how wrong you were to say that all plans have "massively 'fantasy' RoC" in that the P38s clearly dont. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you mistook me with Skychimp. He made the statement about the 109K`s RoC being overmodelled... Given how wrong you used to be on just about everything you state, that can be forgiven, you rarely know anything about the matters you make your statements about.

Now if I think about it, you are similiar. You both claim the 109K is overmodelled in RoC, but neither of you is showing real life ROC data for the 109K, let alone the in-game ROC data.

You just claim it`s overmodelled.

Hmm, let`s try this attitude...

P-38J is overmodelled in Rate of Climb.
P-40E is overmodelled in Rate of Climb.
Spit5 is overmodelled in Rate of Climb.
Spit9 is overmodelled in Rate of Climb.
P-47D is overmodelled in Rate of Climb.
P-51B is overmodelled in Rate of Climb.
P-51C is overmodelled in Rate of Climb.
P-51D is overmodelled in Rate of Climb.
P-39N is overmodelled in Rate of Climb.

Hey, did I miss something when using the Skychimp-Tagert method of proving things? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>yawn.. nice try, but no sale! Only the new commers here fall for you style Izzie, but not the people who have been here over a week or read 3 or more of your posts.. Same old hypocrit song and dance every time.

Kurfurst__
08-27-2005, 04:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
Do your own research, Isegrim. I'm tired of reposting the same evidence over and over again, just because you're not comfortable with the results. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You ain`t posting anything lrrp2. You just keep saying "I`ve got the evidence, I`ve got the evidence". Then, silence, nothing.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
-Neil said 2 squadrons were using 100/150 grade in May. By July the entire VIII FC was using 100/150 grade. Twelve squadrons were flying the P-47D from July to October of '44. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Care to post your sources which told you all P-47Ds were flying on 150 grade fuel? Is there any?
You simply use half-truths all the time, we know 2 Squdrons used it, and now you try to make it 12 without any sort of evidence.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Go ahead, Isegrim/Kurfurst, ask Neil whether or not he disagrees with me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well Neil says 2, you say 12, that IS a disagreement to me.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
-If you want to know which twelve squadrons used at least 67" Hg, then figure out which four VIII Fighter Command groups were equipped with the P-47 after 11 July '44. Heck- since I'm such a nice guy, I'll do it for you: the 56th, 78th, 353rd and 356th. That's 300 P-47D's, give or take, running at least 67" Hg WEP. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So basically you say 12 Squadrons were using 67" Hg boost because you hypothesized based on nothing that all P-47 units switched to 150 grade... I was excepting such "evidence".

Do you have figures of 150 grade shipments to P-47 units, orders, squadron logs mentioning increased boost? Lrrp2 thinks all planes got 150 grade in the 8th AAF, though evidence is absent, and he thinks thus all P-47s were running on high boost, of course, though evidence is absent again. No, it`s merely just speculation.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
-The ETO and MTO P-47 units that used 70" Hg on 100/130 did because they figured out that the engine could take that kind of stress, even without 100/150 grade.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and the source for that : some veterans memories 60 years after the events, recalling precise techspecs and boost from 1944... oh yeah, that`s believable, if there is actually a vet telling this, that is.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Now, scurry along and do some research before you indulge us with another of your tirades.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Care to tell us what research YOU have made? Absolutely none, my friend. You stalk the BBs and copy the parts you like from what Neil Stirling dug up, and present it in your wishful way : lots of words, I can always expect that from you but facts, evidence.... NEVER.

Kurfurst__
08-27-2005, 04:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
kurfy, your dragging this offtopic http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

k4 issue is the ROC doesnt decay like it should with height.

to copy k4s roc irl would require a highly complex, and ineffiecent supercharger/engine design.

ROC is about 30metres a second till 5000metres ingame, think irl the ROC had dropped by 1/4 to a 1/3rd.

dont have all the graphs handy about it, but thats what i remmbered offhand.

kurfy has stated the k4's climb is overdone on several occasions i think. dont think hes started a thread on it tho </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All true, all I am saying it`s not the only offender. The Spitty Mark Five does twice the climbrate it should at altitude, it actually climbs with the 109K there... I doubt it should. The Mustang climbs at around 22 m/sec at SL, in reality it did around 17-18. The LA7 does some 28 at SL, it should do 24 like the 109K and I could go on. It`s not so disturbing as long as plane`s are reletively OK to each other. But it effects so many planes that`s it`s highly unlikely to be corrected. But as long as someone just picks on one plane, it`s just full bias. And it`s always goes like this, make Axis planes poorer, Allied planes better.

faustnik
08-27-2005, 04:38 PM
This is garbage! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif Buzzsaw Started this thread with some legitimate testing and a legitimate question. Kurfurst comes in an trashes the whole thread with absolutely no relavent information, testing, or anything else worthwhile. I'd sure like to see this thread cleaned up to the original post.

WWMaxGunz
08-27-2005, 04:39 PM
Can't this wait until AFTER 4.02 and new "tests"?

Kurfurst__
08-27-2005, 04:54 PM
Well faustnik you are right.

Buzzsaw said the 8th AF P-47`s had increased boost - I`d like to see his evidence.
He also said his got his tests recorded on tracks, so why not share them so that everyone can see they are trouble free? It`s easy to measure longer times if you are flying badly.

I think these were legit requests, considering it all came from Buzzsaw, who`s record and credibility we are all familiar with.

TAGERT.
08-27-2005, 05:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Well faustnik you are right.

Buzzsaw said the 8th AF P-47`s had increased boost - I`d like to see his evidence.
He also said his got his tests recorded on tracks, so why not share them so that everyone can see they are trouble free? It`s easy to measure longer times if you are flying badly.

I think these were legit requests, considering it all came from Buzzsaw, who`s record and credibility we are all familiar with. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>What a boob! You didnt request JACK! You very first post consisted of NOTHING but Luftwhinnin!

II_JG1_Schpam
08-27-2005, 05:35 PM
Kurfurst,

If you think Buzzsaw is wrong then do some tests of your own in FB. Privide the tracks. Show that the climb rate is OK in comparison to available historical data. Otherwise your allegations are unfounded and will not garner support. Unforturnately your whole delivery has driven away any support you would have gotten, but you have hope if you can provide evidence.

p1ngu666
08-27-2005, 06:21 PM
take the p47D late stuff to another topic tbh, u is fully capable to start your own, heck i can do it for u if u want. there NO need to drag this thread off topic tbh.

FritzGryphon
08-27-2005, 06:51 PM
Did the test to verify the results.

------------
P-47D22, 110%, full fuel, crimea, noon. I'm not sure what the test is started at, so I did takeoff (200km/h at 2m elevation). Climbspeed from 250-270IAS.

I won't touch the other two P-47's, since they don't use full power. One can only assume the gauges are wrong, as they are on other planes, and replicating historical values is impossible.

----------

1500m: 1:37 (1:45)
3000m: 3:15 (3:35)
4600m: 5:07 (5:00)
6100m: 7:01 (7:00)

----------

I got much better times than you, Buzzsaw, and they almost exactly match the chart. Could you upload a track for this test? I wonder what was done different.
-----

It's funny, the thread up until this point could have been avoided if someone had just re-done the test, and the politicos on both sides had kept their biases to themselves. Takes all of 5 minutes.

Kurfurst__
08-27-2005, 07:05 PM
Seems my concerns were correct. Prejudice can be sometimes the only way.

Badsight.
08-27-2005, 07:21 PM
"seems" ?

as in you didnt know & just decided to try & wreck a P-47 thread ?

thats pathetic !

TAGERT.
08-27-2005, 07:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
Did the test to verify the results.

------------
P-47D22, 110%, full fuel, crimea, noon. I'm not sure what the test is started at, so I did takeoff (200km/h at 2m elevation). Climbspeed from 250-270IAS.

I won't touch the other two P-47's, since they don't use full power. One can only assume the gauges are wrong, as they are on other planes, and replicating historical values is impossible.

----------

1500m: 1:37 (1:45)
3000m: 3:15 (3:35)
4600m: 5:07 (5:00)
6100m: 7:01 (7:00)

----------

I got much better times than you, Buzzsaw, and they almost exactly match the chart. Could you upload a track for this test? I wonder what was done different. Here's mine.

http://members.shaw.ca/evilgryphon3/P47D22climb.zip

-----

It's funny, the thread up until this point could have been avoided if someone had just re-done the test, and the politicos on both sides had kept their biases to themselves. Takes all of 5 minutes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Just so you know, the *.trk files are worthless to send to other people, because they play back differently on some PCs. The *.ntrk file via the QUICK RECORD is the only file that will play back correctly on all PCs

FritzGryphon
08-27-2005, 07:42 PM
Good to know. Well, you'll notice if the ingame numbers don't match the ones I wrote.

And why does the Kurfurst guy never get banned? You are giving a bad name to luftwhiners everywhere!

lrrp22
08-27-2005, 08:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
You ain`t posting anything lrrp2. You just keep saying "I`ve got the evidence, I`ve got the evidence". Then, silence, nothing.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Simple logic, Isegrim:

If VIII fighter command is using 100/150 grade as it standard (it was, even you have admitted it); and if VIII FC authorizes 67" Hg WEP for all P-47's with water injection and 100/150 grade (which it did, and they all had W-I and 150 grade); and if four of the Command's fighter groups were equipped with P-47's (they were), then....

...you must accept that 12 squadrons (4 FG's x 3 squadrons each) of approximately 25 aircraft per squadron (+/- 300 P-47D's) were running <span class="ev_code_yellow">at least 67" Hg WEP</span>.

There, wasn't that easy?


.

TAGERT.
08-27-2005, 08:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
Good to know. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Your Welcome

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
Well, you'll notice if the ingame numbers don't match the ones I wrote. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Hard to tell.. but here is the results

You said
1:37 (1:45) to 1500m = 4,921 feet
3:15 (3:35) to 3000m = 9,842 feet
5:07 (5:00) to 4600m = 15,091 feet
7:01 (7:00) to 6100m = 20,013 feet

Your track file shows
~2.25min = 2:15 to 1500m = 4,921 feet
~3.75min = 3:45 to 3000m = 9,842 feet
~5.75min = 5:45 to 4600m = 15,091 feet
Hard to tell.. You never made it to 6100m = 20,013 feet

Also note, that you were using WEP, I dont know if Buzzsaw- numbers were MIL or WEP. It makes a big difference!

Also note, you used time compression during your test.. All bets are off with that along with the fact that it is a *.trk file and not a *.ntrk file. You really should not use time compression duing testing imho.

Therefore, take these numbers with a grain of salt.

FritzGryphon P47D22 analysis (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_COMPETITION/ROC/P47/FritzGryphon_P47D22cl.pdf)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
And why does the Kurfurst guy never get banned? You are giving a bad name to luftwhiners everywhere! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>He is a lawer in real life, and he surly sent them a letter telling them how he will sue them if he gets banned, thus, like an old wife, cheaper to keep her.

FritzGryphon
08-27-2005, 08:24 PM
K, don't mind the track then. The values, however, are accurate. Just redid it with a watch, and it's not off by 3 seconds.

In any case, I wonder how Buzzsaw managed 8 minutes for the same thing. I used slightly less radiator, is all.

lrrp22
08-27-2005, 08:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
And why does the Kurfurst guy never get banned? You are giving a bad name to luftwhiners everywhere! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He was banned- as 'Isegrim'. He came back as 'Kurfurst'.

This isn't the only forum he has been banned from.

.

TAGERT.
08-27-2005, 08:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
K, don't mind the track then. The values, however, are accurate. Just redid it with a watch, and it's not off by 3 seconds.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>Seeing is beliving.. Got track?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
In any case, I wonder how Buzzsaw managed 8 minutes for the same thing. I used slightly less radiator, is all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>As you can see from the analysis, there are lots of factors at play here, thus to know we would need to see his track file.

FritzGryphon
08-27-2005, 08:33 PM
No.

It's time for someone else to make the tracks, for a change.

TAGERT.
08-27-2005, 08:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
No.

It's time for someone else to make the tracks, for a change. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You may want to reconsider!

In that is what people say when provin wrong!

You dont want anyone to say/think that about you do you?

FritzGryphon
08-27-2005, 09:08 PM
Gah, fine. Funny how you'd hound me for a track, when the original poster didn't (and did the test wrong, to boot). Right click, save as.

http://members.shaw.ca/evilgryphon3/quick0008.ntrk

--------

The third time around, the times are exactly the same as my original test, to the second. 7:01 to 6100m. Contrary to the original claim, I am astounded by how accurate it is to this chart.

You can also see me do a handbrake turn at the end.

luftluuver
08-27-2005, 09:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
This is garbage! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif Buzzsaw Started this thread with some legitimate testing and a legitimate question. Kurfurst comes in an trashes the whole thread with absolutely no relavent information, testing, or anything else worthwhile. I'd sure like to see this thread cleaned up to the original post. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who is this Kurfurst? Is he always so beligerent and obnoxious? Yes, he sure wrecked what would have been an interesting and informative thread.

DGC763
08-27-2005, 09:26 PM
I gave it a crack, with the D-22. Times I got are as follows. First time is from brakes release, second is from unstick and third is from wheels up.

5000' 2:15 2:05 1:59
10,000 3:58 3:49 3:43
15,000 5:45 5:34 5:28
20,000 7:40 7:31 7:25

Crimea noon, 110% WEP no overheat, rad closed. 100 fuel.

Now with the figures compared to the original poster. If we disregard the first 5000' due to different methods. 300km/h start gives you zoom capability up until steady climb speed is attained. Then there is a 21 second difference between my and your time to 15k from 5 and a 39 second difference at 20k. 39 seconds between two testers is a fair amount.

What these differences are we don't know. Also with the graphs in America's 100,000 little is known about the test conditions, especially with the republic data. There is no weight specified so this gives an area of error. Rate of climb comparison maybe more accurate is this case. Tagert I can send you the ntrack if you like.

In other topic (see the P-38 climb one p.23) there is a chart that shows a D-10 using WEP taking 9:30 to reach 20,000 from the start of the T/O role. So again the question of which source do you believe?

Oleg did say that due to factors airplane performance will vary by up to 15% in the most extreme cases.

TAGERT.
08-27-2005, 09:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
Gah, fine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I knew you coulndt stand it! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
Funny how you'd hound me for a track, when the original poster didn't (and did the test wrong, to boot). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Hound? Pointing out the facts is hounding?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
Right click, save as.

http://members.shaw.ca/evilgryphon3/quick0008.ntrk </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Got it! Thanks, be back in a few with the results!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
The third time around, the times are exactly the same as my original test, to the second. 7:01 to 6100m. Contrary to the original claim, I am astounded by how accurate it is to this chart. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>When Oleg is on, he is spot on!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
You can also see me do a handbrake turn at the end. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Roger, Ill look fer it. brb

FritzGryphon
08-27-2005, 09:29 PM
You should put a track too, DGC763.

I don't see why you'd get 7:25 from wheels up. It seems rather easy for me to get 7:01.

We are both using the same map, same fuel, but something else is different.

And sorry to snap at you Tagert. I guess it's not when someone watches a track at all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

TAGERT.
08-27-2005, 09:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DGC763:
Tagert I can send you the ntrack if you like. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Cool! Go for it, Im firing up the DeviceLink device as we speak! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

naca_testing@yahoo.com

Buzzsaw-
08-27-2005, 09:57 PM
Hello Tagert

Back from work.

Where do I send the Ntrks? I don't have an e-mail for you and don't see one in your signature. PM me with an address.

In reply to Fritz Gryphon, the others and their tests:

Doing the test with the Rad closed at full WEP, or only partially open when the engine is overheating is completely bogus. No U.S. tests were ever conducted in this manner. It would give an unhistorical result. No one is going to take a climbtime as accurate, when the testers know that accomplishing that time could only occur with permanent damage to a test engine.

Additionally, Tagerts analysis of the fact Fritz Gryphon did his tracks in accelerated time shows he was not serious about doing them accurately. Anyone who has spent any time with this game, knows that records done when time compression is used are useless and inaccurate.

In regards to Fritz Gryphon's suggesting that the less than full power tests are not useful, I would direct him to the entire set of 109 climbtests the Luftwaffe community insisted that Oleg use as a measure. ALL those tests were done at less than full WEP power, and instead used the historical Luftwaffe climbtest throttle settings, which approximate 100%. (but not exactly) Oleg based his whole performance standard for the 109's on those tests, after Luftwaffers complained about him using other measurement methods.

DGC763
08-27-2005, 09:59 PM
I made an error, adjusted times are as follows.

I got 7:13 from lift off. My bad Tagert the track is in the mail.

DGC763
08-27-2005, 10:05 PM
Buzzsaw, how do you explain a WEP TTC graph such as the one posted in the P-38 climb thread? How do they achieve these times, apart from doing segmented test. It is possible that TTC are just derived from other data. Such as measuring excess power then using formula to derive a climb schedule.

Can you tell us how these test were conducted? I mean the specifics?

TAGERT.
08-27-2005, 10:06 PM
A very good climb! You have the steady hand of a TEST PILOT!

Here is the analysis of your flight

Fritz Gryphon's Run (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/P47/FritzGryphonquick0008.pdf)

1.0 min to 3,022.23 ft
1.5 min to 4,530.52 ft
2.0 min to 6,028.89 ft
2.5 min to 7,514.75 ft
3.0 min to 8,985.49 ft
3.5 min to 10,438.53 ft
4.0 min to 11,871.24 ft
4.5 min to 13,281.04 ft
5.0 min to 14,665.33 ft
5.5 min to 16,021.50 ft
6.0 min to 17,346.95 ft
6.5 min to 18,639.09 ft
7.0 min to 19,895.31 ft
7.5 min to 21,113.01 ft

PROS:
You held a very good IAS

CONS:
You started recording too late, you were all ready at 131mph, thus kind of negating the NASA method.
The air base you started from is 250ft off of the ground. Use the "Yevpatoria" base on the Crimea map because it is at about 0ft (SEA LEVEL).

SUGGESTIONS:
I noticed that your rudder was a little out of trim, then causing you to roll right a bit, and could cause some drag. Consider trimming your rudder to center, it might improve your times

FritzGryphon
08-27-2005, 10:07 PM
in accelerated time

I did my last test, the NTRK one, with no time compression. I got the same results, showing there is no difference between time compression, and not. This only affects the TRK track recording, nothing else.

less than full power test are not usefull

I've looked at boost and RPM values for FW-190, for example, and find I can't replicate real life values. Others have tried setting particular boost and RPM on P-51, and find it does not match historical speeds or climbs. The boost pressure is ultimately just for show. Boost pressures on some planes have changed in past patches, with no subsequent change in performance. There's no reason to believe the P-47 is different, and certainly not to base anything on.

Rad closed at full WEP, or only partially open

Opening the radiator one more click will not increase the climb time by 30 seconds. Plus, there is nothing on your charts to say the radiator should be open at all, or how much; you just assumed. I look forward to seeing how you arrived at such large climb times.

TAGERT.
08-27-2005, 10:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Hello Tagert

Back from work.

Where do I send the Ntrks? I don't have an e-mail for you and don't see one in your signature. PM me with an address.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

send them to

naca_testing@yahoo.com

but, only send them if they are *.ntrk files! Dont send the *.trk files in that they dont play back as they should. By the way, you can convert your *.trk fiels to *.ntrk files by hitting the QUICK RECORD while playing back a track file. But, it only works well if this is done on the machine that the *.trk files were orginally recorded on.

TAGERT.
08-27-2005, 10:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
In regards to Fritz Gryphon's suggesting that the less than full power tests are not useful, I would direct him to the entire set of 109 climbtests the Luftwaffe community insisted that Oleg use as a measure. ALL those tests were done at less than full WEP power, and instead used the historical Luftwaffe climbtest throttle settings, which approximate 100%. (but not exactly) Oleg based his whole performance standard for the 109's on those tests, after Luftwaffers complained about him using other measurement methods. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Is that true? Man! I have those very same people giving me HECK for testing the P38 at less than WEP! Funny how they can flip flop.. Dang Hypocrits!

Buzzsaw-
08-27-2005, 10:20 PM
Salute Fritz Gryphon

Ok, indulge me: Do your tests at full rad opening, since you say it won't make a difference. And at the end of your test, after you pass 6100 meters, fire your guns till they run out. Should be 32 seconds worth of fire. (load extra ammo, that was normal ammo load for P-47's) Then mail the tests to Tagert.

FritzGryphon
08-27-2005, 10:49 PM
Loading extra ammo made a large difference. I get 7:50 with that. Thanks for pointing that out.

http://members.shaw.ca/evilgryphon3/quick0009.ntrk

Since extra ammo only adds about 180kg to the plane (3%), the climb rate shouldn't drop by 12%. The extra ammo loadout is bugged.

180kg is 257l of fuel, so I'll try that out (82% fuel+extra ammo).

FritzGryphon
08-27-2005, 11:19 PM
Extra ammo+82% fuel gives a 7:33 climb time to 6100m.

Removing 180kg of fuel reduced the climb time by 17 seconds, whereas extra ammo increases it by 50. The extra ammo is acting like it weighs 2-3 times what it should.

TAGERT.
08-28-2005, 12:00 AM
Here is the analysis of your flight

BuzzsawQuick0073 (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/P47/buzzsaw/BuzzsawQuick0073.pdf)

Here is the summary of your time-to-alt

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
min alt (feet)
------------------
1.00 2123.22
2.00 4044.67
3.00 5925.29
4.00 7763.92
5.00 9559.40
6.00 11310.57
7.00 13016.25
8.00 14675.29
9.00 16286.51
10.00 17848.77
11.00 19360.88</pre>

PROS:
Very steady at the wheel!

CONS:
You started from mid air, thus negating the NASA method.

SUGGESTIONS:
Use the NASA method, otherwise your TTC's and ROC's will be better than they should be, i.e. better than they were in real life, in that in real life the USAAF used the NASA method where the started on the run way at a full stop and the timmer started once you started rolling.

FritzGryphon
08-28-2005, 12:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> full stop and the timmer started once you started rolling. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The chart shows the altitude start increasing at 0 time; has to be airstart. Or, start timing the instant you take off.

Buzzsaw-
08-28-2005, 12:29 AM
Salute Tagert

That was the Ntrk for the P-47D10 at normal power... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

For the D22 you want Ntrk #76.

I will try the test from takeoff. Should take longer than starting at 300 kph in flight.

However, my understanding from Oleg was that his tests were done at a starting speed of 300 kph at sea level in flight.

Buzzsaw-
08-28-2005, 12:40 AM
Salute FritzGryphon

How do you load 82% fuel?

Maybe I've missed something, but you can only load either 25, 50, 75 or 100 % fuel.

By the way, a P-47D22 carries 305 U.S. gallons of fuel. That is 2013 lbs, 18% of that is 362 lbs or 165 kgs.

A D25 or later carries 370 gallons of fuel.

TAGERT.
08-28-2005, 12:41 AM
Here is the analysis of your flight

BuzzsawQuick0075 (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/P47/buzzsaw/BuzzsawQuick0075.pdf)

Here is the summary of your time-to-alt

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
min alt (feet)
------------------
1.00 2000.75
2.00 4042.01
3.00 6053.96
4.00 8032.99
5.00 9975.44
6.00 11877.70
7.00 13736.13
8.00 15547.10
9.00 17306.97
10.00 19012.11
</pre>

PROS:
Very steady at the wheel!

CONS:
You started from mid air, thus negating the NASA method.

SUGGESTIONS:
Use the NASA method, otherwise your TTC's and ROC's will be better than they should be.

TAGERT.
08-28-2005, 12:42 AM
Here is the analysis of your flight

BuzzsawQuick0076 (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/P47/buzzsaw/BuzzsawQuick0076.pdf)

Here is the summary of your time-to-alt

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
min alt (feet)
------------------
1.00 2710.82
2.00 5361.69
3.00 8017.04
4.00 10634.12
5.00 13170.17
6.00 15582.43
7.00 17828.14
8.00 19864.55
</pre>

PROS:
Very steady at the wheel!

CONS:
You started from mid air, thus negating the NASA method.

SUGGESTIONS:
Use the NASA method, otherwise your TTC's and ROC's will be better than they should be.

TAGERT.
08-28-2005, 12:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
However, my understanding from Oleg was that his tests were done at a starting speed of 300 kph at sea level in flight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>His tests might be.. But the data in those books your comparing to was not.

TAGERT.
08-28-2005, 12:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
The chart shows the altitude start increasing at 0 time; has to be airstart. Or, start timing the instant you take off. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No, that is just the effect of a polynomial fit to the data points.

FritzGryphon
08-28-2005, 01:04 AM
So, even with a 20 second delay for takeoff, you could still make the 1:45/5000ft checkpoint?

Even with 25% fuel, I don't think you could pull that off.

Besides, even if they smothed the curve, they'd still leave the ground run flat. It's that way on all the other charts.

Otherwise, one could say you could climb to 100ft in 2 seconds, from a standing start. Not very likely.

DGC763
08-28-2005, 01:08 AM
Did a test in a P-47 D-10 WEP climb and hit 20,000' in about 7:50, which is about 1:40 quicker than the P-47 D-10 WEP test that is contained in the chart P-38 discussion. Which is a little strange. 1:40 is a long time.

I sent you the track Tagert.

TAGERT.
08-28-2005, 01:10 AM
DGC763 Here is the analysis of your flight

DGC763's P-4722 (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/P47/dgc763/DGC763_P-4722.pdf)

Here is the summary of your time-to-alt

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
min alt (feet)
------------------
1.00 1319.75
2.00 3935.12
3.00 6782.08
4.00 9740.37
5.00 12689.72
6.00 15509.86
7.00 18080.51
</pre>

PROS:
Very steady at the wheel *and* you followed the NASA method!

CONS:
none

SUGGESTIONS:
none

TAGERT.
08-28-2005, 01:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
So, even with a 20 second delay for takeoff, you could still make the 1:45/5000ft checkpoint?

Even with 25% fuel, I don't think you could pull that off.

Besides, even if they smothed the curve, they'd still leave the ground run flat. It's that way on all the other charts.

Otherwise, one could say you could climb to 100ft in 2 seconds, from a standing start. Not very likely. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You can belive what ever you like, I really dont care! Nor do I care to debate it!

Been there done that!

But I will go as far as to provide you this The NASA Method (http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Education/OnlineEd/Intro2Flight/nasclmb.html)

TAGERT.
08-28-2005, 02:04 AM
DGC763 Here is the analysis of your flight

DGC763_P-47D10_WEP (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/P47/dgc763/DGC763_P-47D10_WEP.pdf)

Here is the summary of your time-to-alt

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
min alt (feet)
------------------
1.00 1410.25
2.00 4068.59
3.00 6913.97
4.00 9847.52
5.00 12770.37
6.00 15583.63
7.00 18188.44
8.00 20485.92
</pre>

PROS:
Very steady at the wheel *and* you followed the NASA method!

CONS:
none

SUGGESTIONS:
none

Kurfurst__
08-28-2005, 07:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
Simple logic, Isegrim:

If VIII fighter command is using 100/150 grade as it standard (it was, even you have admitted it); and if VIII FC authorizes 67" Hg WEP for all P-47's with water injection and 100/150 grade (which it did, and they all had W-I and 150 grade); and if four of the Command's fighter groups were equipped with P-47's (they were), then....

...you must accept that 12 squadrons (4 FG's x 3 squadrons each) of approximately 25 aircraft per squadron (+/- 300 P-47D's) were running <span class="ev_code_yellow">at least 67" Hg WEP</span>.

There, wasn't that easy?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Oh, now I get it. So it`s all assumption right?

Assumption that _all_ of the 8th AAF was running on 150 grade fuel, a 'fact' that I allagadly admitted, though I don`t think I ever did, nice attempt putting words into my mouth... an assumption that _all_ P-47s were authorized for 67" boost (despite the fact that there was obviously difference in rating between the various P-47D types engine ratings), an assumption that all P-47 Groups were running on 150 grade fuel and high boost.

NONE of this is documented anywhere.

Basically, it`s half assumption, half wishful thinking with facts and documentation being non-existant.


So you need to provide evidence, `cos it`s still missing :

- that the entire 8th AAF was exclusively running on 150 grade.
- ALL P-47 groups were receiving 150 grade
- ALL P-47s engine types in those groups were cleared for 67" Hg boost - obviously there was more than one model, with diff. rating approved.
-Then I wonder how the did est. Squadron strenght suddenly increse to 25 from 12, which you claim was 100% on established strenght all the time, so you do care to find a source to that by listing actual unit strenghts for July.


Until then, your claims are closer to a good joke than a serious suggestion.

Neil Stirling, who`s research you are using up in your speculation, says only 2 Squadrons were running on 150 grade fuel and high boost.

Kurfurst__
08-28-2005, 07:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
In regards to Fritz Gryphon's suggesting that the less than full power tests are not useful, I would direct him to the entire set of 109 climbtests the Luftwaffe community insisted that Oleg use as a measure. ALL those tests were done at less than full WEP power, and instead used the historical Luftwaffe climbtest throttle settings, which approximate 100%. (but not exactly) Oleg based his whole performance standard for the 109's on those tests, after Luftwaffers complained about him using other measurement methods. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is that true? Man! I have those very same people giving me HECK for testing the P38 at less than WEP! Funny how they can flip flop.. Dang Hypocrits! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Except that the historical LW measurement power of climb rate was done at 100% power, called 'Steig und Kampfleistung', instead of 110% power, called 'Start und Notleistung', or WEP in the game. LW climb times are given for 100%/non-WEP power, in fact it`s very rare to find full-powered climb tests with them. Different airforces used different standards of course.

But I guess the above gives a hint about what this thread is all about...

Luftwaffe planes too good! Make them worser!
Allied planes not good enough ! Make them better!
Cry, cry about 'luftwhiners'...

Pathethic, primitive.

Kurfurst__
08-28-2005, 07:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
He was banned- as 'Isegrim'. He came back as 'Kurfurst'.

This isn't the only forum he has been banned from.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No m8, quit lying. I simply changed my handle to Kurfurst on all boards I visit as a tribute to the best fighter of WW2, and besides, Isegrim got boring after all those years.

p1ngu666
08-28-2005, 07:58 AM
tagert, best way todo the tracks would be to start track with plane on runway, engine off, then takeoff?

but be more of a pain to work out time to climb tho http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

TAGERT.
08-28-2005, 08:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Except that the historical LW measurement power of climb rate was done at 100% power, called 'Steig und Kampfleistung', instead of 110% power, called 'Start und Notleistung', or WEP in the game. LW climb times are given for 100%/non-WEP power, in fact it`s very rare to find full-powered climb tests with them. Different airforces used different standards of course.

But I guess the above gives a hint about what this thread is all about...

Luftwaffe planes too good! Make them worser!
Allied planes not good enough ! Make them better!
Cry, cry about 'luftwhiners'...

Pathethic, primitive. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>yawn.. kids.. they moc what they dont understand. Poor Dufurst__

TAGERT.
08-28-2005, 08:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
tagert, best way todo the tracks would be to start track with plane on runway, engine off, then takeoff? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Best? I dont know if it is best, but, it is *the* method they used.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
but be more of a pain to work out time to climb tho http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Nah, just addition and subtraction.

Monson74
08-28-2005, 08:33 AM
Gents,

Why all this late-war-uberboost-fuzz? Seems like you people are more interested in getting the best plane so you can optimize your stats than having a historical sim with a planeset representing what flew in numbers. Everybody flies the A-9, K-4, P-38L "Late" & wanting boosted P-47s, Spit IX or XIV to get La-7 performance. Who flies the A-8 or P-51 online? The Dora just recently got a comeback because the 151 was fixed. Think about it: Which warbirds were produced & saw action in the greatest quantity? Those are the planes we should fly & care about.

My 2c.

TAGERT.
08-28-2005, 08:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Monson74:
Gents,

Why all this late-war-uberboost-fuzz? Seems like you people are more interested in getting the best plane so you can optimize your stats than having a historical sim with a planeset representing what flew in numbers. Everybody flies the A-9, K-4, P-38L "Late" & wanting boosted P-47s, Spit IX or XIV to get La-7 performance. Who flies the A-8 or P-51 online? The Dora just recently got a comeback because the 151 was fixed. Think about it: Which warbirds were produced & saw action in the greatest quantity? Those are the planes we should fly & care about.

My 2c. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Basically because these planes were not that LATE! They were cleared for higher MP back in 44.

DangerForward
08-28-2005, 08:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Monson74:
Gents,

Why all this late-war-uberboost-fuzz? Seems like you people are more interested in getting the best plane so you can optimize your stats than having a historical sim with a planeset representing what flew in numbers. Everybody flies the A-9, K-4, P-38L "Late" & wanting boosted P-47s, Spit IX or XIV to get La-7 performance. Who flies the A-8 or P-51 online? The Dora just recently got a comeback because the 151 was fixed. Think about it: Which warbirds were produced & saw action in the greatest quantity? Those are the planes we should fly & care about.

My 2c. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably because the popular late war servers(i.e. Warclouds) have only a few late war allied planes, while having the best selection of late war axis planes. You could say that it's late war axis versus early '44 allied planes.

CUJO_1970
08-28-2005, 09:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DangerForward:
Probably because the popular late war servers(i.e. Warclouds) have only a few late war allied planes, while having the best selection of late war axis planes. You could say that it's late war axis versus early '44 allied planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Sorry, but this is nonesense.

And by "best selection of late war axis" you forgot to mention that the best axis fighter (Me-262) is always banned online because it would totally dominate.

Dtools4fools
08-28-2005, 09:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Posted Sun August 28 2005 07:33
Gents,

Why all this late-war-uberboost-fuzz? Seems like you people are more interested in getting the best plane so you can optimize your stats than having a historical sim with a planeset representing what flew in numbers. Everybody flies the A-9, K-4, P-38L "Late" & wanting boosted P-47s, Spit IX or XIV to get La-7 performance. Who flies the A-8 or P-51 online? The Dora just recently got a comeback because the 151 was fixed. Think about it: Which warbirds were produced & saw action in the greatest quantity? Those are the planes we should fly & care about.

My 2c.


S!

Monson


Fly at altitude - fight with attitude! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well said!
For myself I prefer to fly cr@p planes. It's much more an achivement to get a kill against an superior opponent. Even just being able to get away from them without being shot down can be challeinging and fun.
And if I don't make it, well, I have an easy excuse at hand...
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I found this "my toy has to better than your toy" arguments a bit ridiculous.
And even more both sides accusing each other of "whining" or Oleg to be biased...

I got the impression those peope are not interested much in historical stuff but rather that they want a "SuperlateLuft├╝berplaneMadeinUSA" that they can collect more kills.

****

TAGERT.
08-28-2005, 10:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Sorry, but this is nonesense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
And by "best selection of late war axis" you forgot to mention that the best axis fighter (Me-262) is always banned online because it would totally dominate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I wish they would include the Me262! It is fun to shoot down.. the way the motors burn and such.. Gives you a real since of acomplishment! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I only wish the F4u-4 was in the game.. Then I could shoot down Me262 even eaiser.. I mean if a F4u could take down a MiG15 in KOREA it would have no problem dealing with a Me262 imho.

Monson74
08-28-2005, 10:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DangerForward:
Probably because the popular late war servers(i.e. Warclouds) have only a few late war allied planes, while having the best selection of late war axis planes. You could say that it's late war axis versus early '44 allied planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well maybe then we should discuss planesets at the WC forums which I'd be happy to participate in. My suggestion would be FW190-A8, FW190-D9, FW190-F8 & Bf190-G6/AS vs P-51D, P-47D, P-38L, B25J, Mustang Mk. III & Spit IXe (& maybe a CW for the fun of it). http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
08-28-2005, 10:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And by "best selection of late war axis" you forgot to mention that the best axis fighter (Me-262) is always banned online because it would totally dominate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nonsense. It's banned because it causes lag http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ta,
Norris

Diablo310th
08-28-2005, 10:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
Loading extra ammo made a large difference. I get 7:50 with that. Thanks for pointing that out.

http://members.shaw.ca/evilgryphon3/quick0009.ntrk

Since extra ammo only adds about 180kg to the plane (3%), the climb rate shouldn't drop by 12%. The extra ammo loadout is bugged.

180kg is 257l of fuel, so I'll try that out (82% fuel+extra ammo). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Super job guys. I'm following every word in this thread. Somebody please forward this info about teh extra ammo weight difference to Oleg please along with teh results of these climb tests. Maybe it's not too late to make some changes to teh jugs climb rate if he hasn't adjusted it already.

csThor
08-28-2005, 11:14 AM
http://familyfun.go.com/Resources/Cakes/recipes/special/popcorn.jpg

Anyone? ... *munch munch* http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT.
08-28-2005, 11:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Diablo310th:
Super job guys. I'm following every word in this thread. Somebody please forward this info about teh extra ammo weight difference to Oleg please along with teh results of these climb tests. Maybe it's not too late to make some changes to teh jugs climb rate if he hasn't adjusted it already. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I have not had any time to draw any conclusions, I have been too busy just plotting the data for people. But, anyone feel free to send those analysis to Oleg via the bug report e-mail! I don't have time to get into the details, I'm just glad that I could help in the analysis that people can draw conclusions from.

Must be something to it all.. In that the LuftWhiners are nervous.. They are putting the wagons in a circle and try discrete and or just pollute this thread with all kinds of noise. You know your onto something when the Poster Boys of LuftWhining come out to play this hard! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ElAurens
08-28-2005, 11:51 AM
Please just ignore Issi/Kurfy. He and Hristo use a very common parliamentary proceedure to derail any thread about Allied perfornmance, it's called a filibuster.

From the Official U.S. Senate website:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">filibuster - Informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Be sparring with them you only play into their hands gents. Ignore them.

Be sure.

TAGERT.
08-28-2005, 12:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
Please just ignore Issi/Kurfy. He and Hristo use a very common parliamentary proceedure to derail any thread about Allied perfornmance, it's called a filibuster.

From the Official U.S. Senate website:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">filibuster - Informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Be sparring with them you only play into their hands gents. Ignore them.

Be sure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>True That!

faustnik
08-28-2005, 12:54 PM
Any chance of one of those great graphs Tagert? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

S.taibanzai
08-28-2005, 12:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
Kufurst should stop trying to thread wreck & stick to topic </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Badsight should stop with his obvious, short sighted agenda. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

S.taibanzai
08-28-2005, 01:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
This is garbage! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif Buzzsaw Started this thread with some legitimate testing and a legitimate question. Kurfurst comes in an trashes the whole thread with absolutely no relavent information, testing, or anything else worthwhile. I'd sure like to see this thread cleaned up to the original post. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who is this Kurfurst? Is he always so beligerent and obnoxious? Yes, he sure wrecked what would have been an interesting and informative thread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look at Yankyluver

Please deleted your name

its a shame for us REAL LUFTLOVERS ))

S.taibanzai
08-28-2005, 01:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
kurfy, your dragging this offtopic http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

k4 issue is the ROC doesnt decay like it should with height.

to copy k4s roc irl would require a highly complex, and ineffiecent supercharger/engine design.

ROC is about 30metres a second till 5000metres ingame, think irl the ROC had dropped by 1/4 to a 1/3rd.

dont have all the graphs handy about it, but thats what i remmbered offhand.

kurfy has stated the k4's climb is overdone on several occasions i think. dont think hes started a thread on it tho </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All true, all I am saying it`s not the only offender. The Spitty Mark Five does twice the climbrate it should at altitude, it actually climbs with the 109K there... I doubt it should. The Mustang climbs at around 22 m/sec at SL, in reality it did around 17-18. The LA7 does some 28 at SL, it should do 24 like the 109K and I could go on. It`s not so disturbing as long as plane`s are reletively OK to each other. But it effects so many planes that`s it`s highly unlikely to be corrected. But as long as someone just picks on one plane, it`s just full bias. And it`s always goes like this, make Axis planes poorer, Allied planes better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kufurst is the man who wants real live performance http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Not like the rest of ubi.forums members

they are 90% Yank whiners

And Olegs nows that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

TAGERT.
08-28-2005, 01:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Any chance of one of those great graphs Tagert? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I didnt post them as pictures this time, but, I did post a link to a PDF file which contains all the graphs, look for the blue color text in the posts I put up, click on them and they will open up a PDF file with *all* the stuff in it.

TAGERT.
08-28-2005, 01:09 PM
S! Buzzsaw

I updated your track files with my new format

The differences

1) I moved the summary table to page one. For all the guys that like numbers and don't like graphs.
2) I added the T/C MIL PWR from GRAPH30 of Americas Hundred-Thousand on page 278.

Here they are along with the TTC plots. You should take a look at the end of the PDF file for the ROC plots.

BuzzsawQuick0073.pdf (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/P47/buzzsaw/BuzzsawQuick0073.pdf)

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/P47/buzzsaw/BuzzsawQuick0073.JPG

BuzzsawQuick0075.pdf (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/P47/buzzsaw/BuzzsawQuick0075.pdf)

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/P47/buzzsaw/BuzzsawQuick0075.JPG

BuzzsawQuick0076.pdf (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/P47/buzzsaw/BuzzsawQuick0076.pdf)

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/P47/buzzsaw/BuzzsawQuick0076.JPG

I'm working on converting all of the TTC/ROC graphs in Americas Hundred-Thousand, but that will take time. This graph appeared to be the BEST TTC for MIL power, and your first two didn't get close, but, your third where you were using WEP did manage to beat the MIL in some aspects.

TAGERT.
08-28-2005, 01:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by S.taibanzai:
Kufurst is the man who wants real live performance http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Not like the rest of ubi.forums members

they are 90% Yank whiners

And Olegs nows that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>WOW! I didnt know Izzies mom posted here too.. I better go easy on him.. I dont want his mom to be mad at me! ROTFL!

faustnik
08-28-2005, 01:12 PM
Got it. Thanks Tagert! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Buzzsaw-
08-28-2005, 01:52 PM
Salute

First:

Here are the weights for the early P-47D and late. (Razorback and Bubbletop)

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/4278/p47weights2zo.jpg

You can see the weight of the extra ammunition load is 166 lbs, 75.5 kgs, so less than FritzGryphon's estimate. Obviously there could be some issues here in regards to the weight which is being added by the Sim when an aircraft carries extra ammo.

Overall fully loaded weight for the Razorbacks was 13,582 lbs, which as you can see for the charts, corresponds with the 13,500 listed for the Razorbacks.

Overall loaded weight for the Bubbletops is 14,411 lbs, mainly due to the extra 65 gallons of gasoline that was carried in the extra auxiliary tank.

I have often wondered if Oleg is rating both the Razorback and the Bubbletop at the same weights, as I don't seem to see much of a handling difference.

Buzzsaw-
08-28-2005, 02:05 PM
Salute Tagert

While I appreciate your charts, you are confused about a couple of things:

The D10 and D27's historical climbtest results were at NORMAL power, not MILITARY power. There is quite a difference.

Have a look at the engine power chart again:

http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/8996/p47enginedataaht7ct.jpg

You can see that NORMAL power is 1625 hp except for the P-47M and N which is 1700 hp. Military power for most is 2000 hp, except the engine for the P-47M and N which is 2100 hp. Then you have the varying amounts for T.O. (takeoff) and COMBAT power, which can be either 2300 hp, 2535 hp, (not listed here) 2600 hp, or 2800 hp for the M's and N's.

You are comparing a real life test done with 1625 available hp with an ingame test done at 2300 hp.

For those who don't like doing a test using the gauges to give the correct boost and rpm levels for NORMAL power, they could do a test another way, that being determining the percentage of hp that 1625 represents of the total available for an aircraft, and then set the throttle to that percentage.

For example, the P-47D10 has a maximum hp rating of 2300 at COMBAT or T.O. power. (equivalent to 110% throttle, WEP) 1625 hp is 70.5 % of 2300 hp, 70.5% of 110% throttle is 77.5 % so if they set their throttle at 77-78%, and do the climbtest, they could take those results and compare them to the historical test.

Buzzsaw-
08-28-2005, 02:18 PM
Salute

It seems pretty clear from the various tests that have been done, that the aircraft are not climbing at their historical rates, especially at higher altitudes, which is an area where the P-47 should do well.

This is not just a function of the game's high altitude modelling, since we are talking about climbs up to 20,000 ft, and UNDER 30,000 ft, and Oleg has said that his model is correct up to 30,000 ft.

Aaron_GT
08-28-2005, 03:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This is not just a function of the game's high altitude modelling, since we are talking about climbs up to 20,000 ft, and UNDER 30,000 ft, and Oleg has said that his model is correct up to 30,000 ft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was the FM for 3.x. 4.0 is the demo for the BoB FM, but it's entirely possible that not everything is sorted out for it at the moment as most planes seem to be lacking a bit of climb rate at high altitude at the moment.

TAGERT.
08-28-2005, 03:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute Tagert </div></BLOCKQUOTE>S! Buzzsaw!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
While I appreciate your charts, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>My pleasure!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
you are confused about a couple of things:

The D10 and D27's historical climbtest results were at NORMAL power, not MILITARY power. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Im confused?

If I am confused, than Americas Hundred-Thousand is confused too!

In that my assumption that they use MIL is based on the T/C MIL PWR curve in the following figure (GRAPH 30) from Americas Hundred-Thousand.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/P47/buzzsaw/AHT_P47_GRAPH30_SMALL.JPG

As you can clearly see, some TTC curves are listed as MIL and others are listed as NORM. Note is also clearly says P47D thru -22, Which covers the -10. Therefore I think it is safe to assume that some of them were done at MIL. But, I do agree with you that the -27s were done at NORMAL and COMBAT on GRAPH31. So.. with that said.. who is confused now? Me? You? or the author of Americas Hundred-Thousand?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
There is quite a difference. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Bet! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Have a look at the engine power chart again:

http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/8996/p47enginedataaht7ct.jpg

You can see that NORMAL power is 1625 hp except for the P-47M and N which is 1700 hp. Military power for most is 2000 hp, except the engine for the P-47M and N which is 2100 hp. Then you have the varying amounts for T.O. (takeoff) and COMBAT power, which can be either 2300 hp, 2535 hp, (not listed here) 2600 hp, or 2800 hp for the M's and N's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Which is all fine and well, but does not spicifally say they didnt preform the climb tests at MIL. Where as the GRAPH30 cleary indicates they did. Also, note that from P-47D to P-47D-40 that MIL is equal to 2000hp for each version.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
You are comparing a real life test done with 1625 available hp with an ingame test done at 2300 hp. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No, Im comparing the TTC curve from GRAPH30 (T/C MIL PWR) to your several in-game climbs at different power settings.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
For those who don't like doing a test using the gauges to give the correct boost and rpm levels for NORMAL power, they could do a test another way, that being determining the percentage of hp that 1625 represents of the total available for an aircraft, and then set the throttle to that percentage. For example, the P-47D10 has a maximum hp rating of 2300 at COMBAT or T.O. power. (equivalent to 110% throttle, WEP) 1625 hp is 70.5 % of 2300 hp, 70.5% of 110% throttle is 77.5 % so if they set their throttle at 77-78%, and do the climbtest, they could take those results and compare them to the historical test. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>All very interesting.. but how does any of that explain the MIL associaged to the GRAPH30 charts?

Buzzsaw-
08-28-2005, 07:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:

In that my assumption that they use MIL is based on the T/C MIL PWR curve in the following figure (GRAPH 30) from Americas Hundred-Thousand.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/P47/buzzsaw/AHT_P47_GRAPH30_SMALL.JPG

As you can clearly see, some TTC curves are listed as MIL and others are listed as NORM.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With all due respect, have another look at Graph 30... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

You are correct that some are listed as MIL and some as NORM. However, the relevant one, ie. the only one which definitely applies to the D10 is the one which is shown as a solid black line, labelled as "T/C NORM PWR, 13,500 LBS" In the header box above it is clarified as: "USAAF Data, P-47C-1 - 5, and P-47D thru 22", so it clearly applies to the D10. The other two climb lines, (which are at MILITARY power) are identified in the header box as: "Republic Data, P-47D to D5", and "P-47 Manual Data, P-47B, C, G, Early D". Ie. the D10 is not included, unless we take "Early D" as applying to the D10, but exactly what numbers fall under the category "Early D" is unclear.

TAGERT.
08-28-2005, 08:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
With all due respect, have another look at Graph 30... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Ok, done.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
You are correct that some are listed as MIL and some as NORM. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Is what Im saying, and would you agree it is the best climb rate curve listed? Put anotherway, no P47 should climb BETTER than that at MIL/2000hp power settings.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
However, the relevant one, ie. the only one which definitely applies to the D10 is the one which is shown as a solid black line, labelled as "T/C NORM PWR, 13,500 LBS" In the header box above it is clarified as: "USAAF Data, P-47C-1 - 5, and P-47D thru 22", so it clearly applies to the D10. The other two climb lines, (which are at MILITARY power) are identified in the header box as: "Republic Data, P-47D to D5", and "P-47 Manual Data, P-47B, C, G, Early D". Ie. the D10 is not included, unless we take "Early D" as applying to the D10, but exactly what numbers fall under the category "Early D" is unclear. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, ok, I *see* what you saying.. The MIL line I ploted says it was relivant to D-5s and below.

But, they are all 2000hp P47s at MIL!

So, unless the D-10 and D-22 are alot heavier than a D-5 that line should be good for MIL power testing imho. Thus, you have a MIL time-to-climb line and a NOM time-to-climb. All we need now is a WEP line.

Or, is there something else Im missing?

Buzzsaw-
08-28-2005, 09:43 PM
Salute Tagert

Almost that simple, but... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Here is another table from AMERICA'S HUNDRED THOUSAND showing the empty, (no fuel, lubricants, ammo or pilot) weights of a D10 or later and D25 or later.

http://img397.imageshack.us/img397/8608/p47emptyweights6ej.jpg

One difference in weight between the early P-47's and D10 or later are the Water injection systems and its tank on the D10 and later. Which are not shown on the empty weights chart... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif So if you want to use the early P-47D's climb as the same as the D10, then there would be that difference.

There is also another issue, that being 'toothpick' propellors on the D10 versus the 'paddleblade' props on the D22. Although the D10 was upgraded with paddle blade props in December of '44, along with all Razorbacks, the propellors were not original equipment, and I don't think Oleg has modelled them on this aircraft. The paddle blade props were estimated by a NACA report to make up to 400 feet per minute difference in the climbrate of a P-47. So you can't nessesarily use the WEP climb figures for the D22 for the D10.

We still have the issue of the D27, and the fact that we only have NORMAL power climb charts for it.

So to clarify:

1) You could use the Republic Data for P-47D to P-47D-5 MILITARY power climb as a substitute for the D10, bearing in mind the D10 would be a little heavier with the water injection equipment and tank. I wouldn't put much faith in the material from the manuals, it was put out before the aircraft had been thoroughly tested.

2) You can't really use the D22 COMBAT power climb for the D10, since it is likely that the PF P-47D10 doesn't have a Paddle blade prop. (it might have, not sure)

Someone mentioned they had a chart showing D10 climbs in relation to a P-38? Can they post that?

Daiichidoku
08-28-2005, 10:29 PM
FB D 10 has thin prop

AFAIK, the FB D 22 still has a thin prop, even though paddles started from D 21 block onwards

incidentially, the FB D 27 is missing the intial configuation rudder fillet, started from D 25 onwards...(i believe the second config rudder fillet from D 30 onwards)

Badsight.
08-28-2005, 10:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

It seems pretty clear from the various tests that have been done, that the aircraft are not climbing at their historical rates, especially at higher altitudes, which is an area where the P-47 should do well.

This is not just a function of the game's high altitude modelling, since we are talking about climbs up to 20,000 ft, and UNDER 30,000 ft, and Oleg has said that his model is correct up to 30,000 ft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>so this still stands ?

the P-47 D10 & 22 both are undermoddeled in climb power , especially over 6K ? how about the higher Hp D27 ? this needs to be sent to maddox Games before its too late fo the next patch , the Thunderbolt wasnt Turbo-Supercharged for no reason !

i thought that FB has atmosphere modeling of a kind up to 10K ? or so it has been stated in the past

DGC763
08-29-2005, 01:34 AM
Ok gents can you explain the times on the WEP chart that was posted in the P-38L late thread. I don't know how to get it to show here, can someone post it (see P.23 of the thread.).

Compare the results for a D-10 at WEP to the ingame. I think you will see that that I reahed 20,000 in 7:40 where the chart shows a time to 20,000 of 9:30. How do you explain the 1:40 time difference?

I will give a normal power test a run and see how it compares.

DGC763
08-29-2005, 02:10 AM
Test done at 78% and sent to Tagert, you maybe surprised by the results.

Hoarmurath
08-29-2005, 02:45 AM
You know guys that the time to reach 6100m (20000 ft) is given in object viewer?

In case some of you forgot, i give you again how those time are to be obtained.

Crimea map, noon, over water, 100% power setting

This is Oleg method...

Aaron_GT
08-29-2005, 02:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">incidentially, the FB D 27 is missing the intial configuation rudder fillet, started from D 25 onwards...(i believe the second config rudder fillet from D 30 onwards) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Someone posted some pics showing that apparently not all D27s received the fillet in the factory, apparently including the ones supplied to the USSR. More got the fillet at the factory than not, though.

TAGERT.
08-29-2005, 09:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DGC763:
Ok gents can you explain the times on the WEP chart that was posted in the P-38L late thread. I don't know how to get it to show here, can someone post it (see P.23 of the thread.). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You mean this one?

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/DRYDEN_NASA/how_I_roape_ah_doped_*****mouth.JPG

Oh, wait a min, that is not the right one, that is the picture I used to *show* Hoarmurath that "planes don't start to climb at time zero" after he said

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Request from Hoarmurath to TAGERT to prove him WRONG and I did:
I believe that if the chart say it was done from brake release, then it is, and show a plane that don't start to climb at time zero. If the chart don't state it, and show a plane starting to climb at time zero, then i believe it was not used. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is why Hoarmurath now be lives that the NASA method was used to collect these data points. Or at least he should!

Here, I think this is the picture you wanted, same one, just zoomed out

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/DRYDEN_NASA/NASA_METHOD_CONFIRMED.JPG

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DGC763:
Compare the results for a D-10 at WEP to the in game. I think you will see that that I reached 20,000 in 7:40 where the chart shows a time to 20,000 of 9:30. How do you explain the 1:40 time difference? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Note the statment near the bottom center, where it says

THESE DATA ARE NOT REDUCED TO THE STANDARD ATMOSPHERE

Thus the data in this chart is not adjusted to the std temp like most charts. If you apply the equations stated in the P38 pilots manual in reverse, it would result in taking the P38 curve and making it match the Vought numbers. The same would be true for the P47D-10, but, not sure if it would be a whole 1:40s worth.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DGC763:
I will give a normal power test a run and see how it compares. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I got to run to work, Ill take a look at it tonight.

Buzzsaw-
08-29-2005, 09:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DGC763:

Compare the results for a D-10 at WEP to the ingame. I think you will see that that I reahed 20,000 in 7:40 where the chart shows a time to 20,000 of 9:30. How do you explain the 1:40 time difference?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are referring to this chart I assume:

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/DRYDEN_NASA/NASA_METHOD_CONFIRMED.JPG

The likely reason you are getting quicker climb times than shown on this chart, is that Oleg probably has modelled the D10 with a Paddle Blade prop, which would give it slightly better climb times using WEP than a P-47D22. (the D22 using my tests reached 20,000 in 7:50 minutes)

The D10 did not come stock from the factory with a paddle blade, but it came into service in Britain around November '43 and the Paddle blades were retro-fitted to all USAAF Group aircraft in the first week of January '44.

If that is the case, and Oleg has modelled it with Paddle blade, then it is climbing at too slow a rate, like the D22. With a Paddle blade, it should reach 20,000 ft in under 7:00 minutes as shown in dashed line on left of Chart 31:

http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/6500/p47dclimbandspeed7kd.jpg

We really should have a D10 both with and without a Paddle blade, since it is the only 'clean' P-47 as predominated in the escort battles of July '43 to May '44. (without underwing bomb pods, etc.) Would be nice to have one at 64 or 67 inches MAP boost too.

p1ngu666
08-29-2005, 09:28 AM
if d10s got paddle bladed props in dec 44, then that pretty much makes it a 45 aircraft?

Buzzsaw-
08-29-2005, 09:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:

if d10s got paddle bladed props in dec 44, then that pretty much makes it a 45 aircraft?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not at all. With Paddle blade, these aircraft saw most of their usage in the period Jan. '44 to September '44.

I doubt any were in service by '45 since after September of '44 most P-47's were in the 9th AAF, tasked with groud support for which underwing pods were a requirement. And the D10's wing could not take those pods.

Hoarmurath
08-29-2005, 09:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:

Oh, wait a min, that is not the right one, that is the picture I used to *show* Hoarmurath that "planes don't start to climb at time zero" after he said

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only thing you have shown is what kind of pathological liar you were. And still be. Your rantings here seem of equal value to those in your other threads. Close to none.

Buzzsaw-
08-29-2005, 09:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoarmurath:

The only thing you have shown is what kind of pathological liar you were.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow, this sure advances the discussion... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Buzzsaw-
08-29-2005, 10:24 AM
Salute

This is the aircraft which I would like to have:

http://img276.imageshack.us/img276/4229/razorbackp478pe.jpg

A early '44 clean model of the P-47D10, running at 67 inchs MAP, and putting out 2600 hp with a weight of 13,582 lbs.

Hoarmurath
08-29-2005, 10:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

This is the aircraft which I would like to have:



A early '44 clean model of the P-47D10, running at 67 inchs MAP, and putting out 2600 hp with a weight of 13,582 lbs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thx for making it clear... Too bad the one we have is a 1943 plane...
So all this is about you not having yet your overboosted toy?

Buzzsaw-
08-29-2005, 10:32 AM
Salute

Of course, this one running at 70 inches, and putting out around 2700 hp would also be nice... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://img326.imageshack.us/img326/1905/p47d22b6qv.jpg

Buzzsaw-
08-29-2005, 10:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoarmurath:

So all this is about you not having yet your overboosted toy?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I would like to have my HISTORICALLY ACCURATE, overboosted toy. Just like you Luftwaffles do.

faustnik
08-29-2005, 10:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:


Yes, I would like to have my HISTORICALLY ACCURATE, overboosted toy. Just like you Luftwaffles do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What? Most of the Fw190 series do not have their optimum boost. The P-38 L Late and Mustang III are great examples of Allied a/c in the sim at their maximum ratings.

Buzzsaw-
08-29-2005, 10:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:

What? Most of the Fw190 series do not have their optimum boost. The P-38 L Late and Mustang III are great examples of Allied a/c in the sim at their maximum ratings.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With the exception of the 190A4, which should be 1.42 instead of 1.35, I think they are pretty close Faustnik. A while back I remember telling you that the A4 was incorrect at 1.35, and you insisting that it was fine. If you've changed you mind, by all means talk to Oleg regarding changing that one.

The others are pretty accurate, 190A5 at 1.42. The 190A6 maybe could be at 1.65, although they first came from the factory at 1.42. 190A8 and A9 are both at 1.65 which was what they operated at. Crumpp's suggestion otherwise is not backed up by any facts. The translated document he showed of 4 aircraft at 1.80 says they were incorrectly set at that boost level, likely a factory error.

The 190D's come at both the '44 boost level for C3 injection and also the '45 boost level used for MW-50.

Buzzsaw-
08-29-2005, 10:54 AM
Salute

By the way, I have my doubts about the late P-38L. For one, most P-38's in Europe were in 9th AAF, which had no access to 100/150 fuel, so showing it at a high level of boost is questionable, although perhaps some got the 115/145 fuel in the Pacific. Not sure.

Buzzsaw-
08-29-2005, 10:59 AM
Salute

In the meantime, this thread is about the existing P-47's and their climbrate, which is undermodelled.

I'll believe in the existence of an overboosted P-47 when I actually can click on it in the aircraft selection.

Hoarmurath
08-29-2005, 11:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Yes, I would like to have my HISTORICALLY ACCURATE, overboosted toy. Just like you Luftwaffles do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you sure my Rufe have been overboosted? I doubt it... If it is, all bombers have been too, i can't catch most of them anymore since 4.01!

Quite funny to see that "if you are not with us, you are against us" spirit. Sorry man, but i'm with the original community, not with the one wanting their uber planes for their favorite dogfight server.

Historical accuracy? What a joke, what do you know about history? The history of warclouds or zeke vs wildcats i'm sure you know very well, but that's all...

faustnik
08-29-2005, 11:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:

With the exception of the 190A4, which should be 1.42 instead of 1.35, I think they are pretty close Faustnik. A while back I remember telling you that the A4 was incorrect at 1.35, and you insisting that it was fine. If you've changed you mind, by all means talk to Oleg regarding changing that one.

The others are pretty accurate, 190A5 at 1.42. The 190A6 maybe could be at 1.65, although they first came from the factory at 1.42. 190A8 and A9 are both at 1.65 which was what they operated at. Crumpp's suggestion otherwise is not backed up by any facts. The translated document he showed of 4 aircraft at 1.80 says they were incorrectly set at that boost level, likely a factory error.

The 190D's come at both the '44 boost level for C3 injection and also the '45 boost level used for MW-50. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I sent you a PM outlining my thoughts on the Fw190A4 at 1.42 ata, I guess you didn't read it.

So, how again are 190s overboosted toys???

Buzzsaw-
08-29-2005, 11:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:

So, how again are 190s overboosted toys???

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They aren't. We all know which of the two aircraft the Luftwaffe operated in quantity are represented in overboosted form in the game. Sorry if I wasn't clear. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Buzzsaw-
08-29-2005, 11:14 AM
Salute Faustnik

Sorry for not replying to that PM. I tried to but the forum said I was denied access, and I subsequently forgot to send you an e-mail.

For proof the 190A4 was boosted to 1.42, look at the test by Eric Brown, relevant page here:

http://www.pbase.com/chrisdnt/image/15917684

That was a 190A4/U8, British captured aircraft number PE882. (can't remember original German Werk #, but it is available somewhere)

Buzzsaw-
08-29-2005, 11:18 AM
Salute

Re-reading that account by Brown, it seems his model was boosted to 1.6 ata during the takeoff phase of the test, although the test was done in 1944, and it may be that the British had retroactively known of the uprating the Germans gave their aircraft, and thus upped their testing boost levels. This would be a bit dangerous though, since the A4 did not have the direct into the supercharger venturi C3 petrol injection which the A5, A6 and A8 had, which reduced detonation under load.

Buzzsaw-
08-29-2005, 11:19 AM
Salute Faustnik

Anyway, suggest you start a new thread on this one if you want to pursue it.

faustnik
08-29-2005, 11:23 AM
No problem Buzzsaw. My question was never "if" but, "when" on A4 boost. I still am fairly certain that 2400rpm is an accurate limit for some Eastern front jabos so, the PF model is still valid.

(Sorry, subject of a different thread Fw190A4 boost thread (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/5811031943))

On the subject of P-47s, how difficult was it to remove the wing pylons. Was it as easy as unbolting an ETC 500 rack (45 minutes maximum)? I would appreciate a razorback at higher output, but, I'd appreciate a bubbletop without pylon drag even more.

Buzzsaw-
08-29-2005, 11:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:

On the subject of P-47s, how difficult was it to remove the wing pylons. Was it as easy as unbolting an ETC 500 rack (45 minutes maximum)? I would appreciate a razorback at higher output, but, I'd appreciate a bubbletop without pylon drag even more.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think this is a dead issue, since Oleg has already said he is not going to re-do the graphics model for the P-47's.

In any case, I think the D10 at 67 inches would actually perform better than a D27 at 70 inches.

If you look at the powerloading, the D10 at 13,582 lbs fully loaded on 67 inches and 2600 hp, would have a power loading of 5.22 lbs per hp, whereas the D27 at 70 inches and approx. 2700 hp on 14411 lbs fully loaded would have a powerloading of 5.34 lbs per hp.

Bob Johnson, the well known 56th Fighter Group Ace, said his favourite P-47 was a D-5, which had been upgraded with Water injection, a paddle blade prop and 70 inches of boost.

Johnson, "Lucky", and his crew chief 'Pappy' Gould.

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/images/urg0525.jpg

lrrp22
08-29-2005, 12:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:

On the subject of P-47s, how difficult was it to remove the wing pylons. Was it as easy as unbolting an ETC 500 rack (45 minutes maximum)? I would appreciate a razorback at higher output, but, I'd appreciate a bubbletop without pylon drag even more. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was fairly simple, and common. There are numerous photos of 78th FG bubbletops with and without the wing pylons (it just doesn't seem right to call those monsters 'racks'!). The same goes for 56th FG Jugs.

Frankly, I'm a little curious as to how they pulled that off. Since neither of those groups deployed to the continent, it seems like it would have had an adverse effect on range. Although, pylon removal did still allow for the belly-mounted 200-gallon 'Baby' tank. That, plus the availability of forward airfields probably made removable viable.

VW-IceFire
08-29-2005, 03:49 PM
It seems we have the usual subjects derailing threads with their own personal tangents. But the rest is pretty good.

Especially the really nice pictures of the P-47s in the last few threads. You know, its no Spitfire, Tempest or Mustang...but it has a nice look about it nonetheless. No idea why. I'm very much looking forward to the new boosted P-47s. I keep reading about the unofficial boosting that USAAF P-47 squadrons were in a habit of doing with the Republic and P&W reps supporting them the whole way...so I'm looking forward to this option being presented to us.

It definately makes the P-47 a viable option on the late western front against such Luftwaffe monsters as the Bf-109K-4 and Ta-152H. Its still the pilot and the team that makes the difference in the end.

TAGERT.
08-29-2005, 10:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
The only thing you have shown is what kind of pathological liar you were. And still be. Your rantings here seem of equal value to those in your other threads. Close to none. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree 100%!

In that this picture, i.e.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/DRYDEN_NASA/how_I_roape_ah_doped_*****mouth.JPG

Preceeded by your statment, i.e.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally words posted by Hoarmurath, that TAGERT made him eat:
I believe that if the chart say it was done from brake release, then it is, and show a plane that don't start to climb at time zero. If the chart don't state it, and show a plane starting to climb at time zero, then i believe it was not used. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Proves that Im not a pathological liar, and the only one *ranting* here is the person trying to avoid admiting they made a mistake and was there by WRONG.

WWMaxGunz
08-29-2005, 11:04 PM
I see 4 lines starting at about 1/2 (minute? if the marked alts are in 2000 ft intervals...)
and one line starting at 0. Perhaps the alts are in meters? Nice labels there really.

Oh wait, just saw your post of the whole chart and I really have to laugh now.

Why? It shows the Mustang leaving the ground at time zero. Well, maybe a 2 second roll
till rotation velocity and immediate sustained max climb.

Now really isn't that more likely a line drawn from limited information?
EVERY other plane there starts gaining alt after appx the same 30 seconds but that one.

WWMaxGunz
08-29-2005, 11:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:

Oh, wait a min, that is not the right one, that is the picture I used to *show* Hoarmurath that "planes don't start to climb at time zero" after he said

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only thing you have shown is what kind of pathological liar you were. And still be. Your rantings here seem of equal value to those in your other threads. Close to none. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uh-uh. With that full chart he's got it dead to rights maybe excepting the P-51B curve.
The text in the upper left is totally clear in any case regarding that chart.
The info he has shown does have value.

TAGERT.
08-29-2005, 11:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Now really isn't that more likely a line drawn from limited information? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That would be my guess, or just an artifact of applying a polynomial fit to the limited set of data points.. i.e. connecting the dots. Happens all the time in real life!

TAGERT.
08-29-2005, 11:28 PM
DGC763 Here is the analysis of your flight

DGC763_P-47D10_NOM.pdf (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/P47/dgc763/DGC763_P-47D10_NOM.pdf)

Here is the summary of your time-to-alt

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
min altitude (feet) MP (std) IAS (mph)
---------------------------------------------------------
1.00 1222.09 42.49 159.97
2.00 3336.26 42.49 165.00
3.00 5483.41 42.49 161.91
4.00 7643.32 42.49 157.97
5.00 9795.76 42.49 159.95
6.00 11920.49 42.49 162.10
7.00 13997.28 42.49 160.66
8.00 16005.90 42.49 158.04
9.00 17926.12 42.49 153.44
10.00 19737.71 42.49 154.46
</pre>

Here is the TTC graph
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/P47/dgc763/DGC763_P-47D10_NOM_TTC.JPG

Here is the ROC graph
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/P47/dgc763/DGC763_P-47D10_NOM_ROC.JPG

NOTE in the TTC that the in-game time-to-climb slope is pretty consistent (nearly a straight line), where as the real life TTC data shows a slight curve down after 5,000ft.

That curve down can be verified/seen in the ROC graph in that the in-game ROC crosses over the calculated real life ROC just above 5,000ft. What that means is the in-game P47 has a better ROC than the real life data above ~5,000ft. But, as Buzzsaw noted, this may be due to the real life data being obtained in a P47 without a paddle prop? Note that at 15,000ft the *difference* between the real life ROC (1,600fpm) and the in-game ROC (2,000fpm) is ~400fpm. Which is the amount that Buzzsaw said the paddle prop improved the ROC by.

Also note that below 5,000ft the real life ROC data shows it has a better ROC than the in-game ROC. Which in turn means the real life TTC's are better, which can be verified/seen in the TTC graph below 5,000ft.

PROS:
Very steady at the wheel! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif
You followed the NASA method! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

CONS:
none http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

SUGGESTIONS:
1) Check your rudder trim, I noticed that it was a little off, might improve your climb if trimmed?
2) Try climing a little harder below 5kft (~150mph IAS instead of your ~160mph IAS) which in turn will improve your TTC values in that area.
3) Since your obtaining such good times, you should fire all your ammo at the end of your climb, thus proving you took a full ammo load.

faustnik
08-30-2005, 10:57 AM
Tagert,

Thanks for the above graph with the sim/historical lines. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

The sim's model looks really good!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif If you take out the takeoff time, this lines match perfect.

p1ngu666
08-30-2005, 01:01 PM
the curve is wrong/different?

WWMaxGunz
08-30-2005, 01:04 PM
I notice that the P-47 data from both Republic and USAAF start climbing immediately at
time zero with a slope consistant with the rest of the climbs below 5000 ft.

Suggest that time zero of the RL data was the start of actual climb and not rollout
on the ground. To that end it would maybe be better to shift the red curve left until
the sustained climb (after the first lift done a bit soon there) lies even with the
others. Then I see the red climb curve would lie between Republic and USAAF data,
closer to the factory curve than the USAAF curve. Basically, match the slopes at all
alts above 500 ft and I think you'll find a more real picture.

faustnik
08-30-2005, 01:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Suggest that time zero of the RL data was the start of actual climb and not rollout
on the ground. To that end it would maybe be better to shift the red curve left until
the sustained climb (after the first lift done a bit soon there) lies even with the
others. Then I see the red climb curve would lie between Republic and USAAF data,
closer to the factory curve than the USAAF curve. Basically, match the slopes at all
alts above 500 ft and I think you'll find a more real picture. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Either that or the "blue" curves are averages.

Buzzsaw-
08-30-2005, 02:45 PM
Salute

I find it hard to accept DGC763's climbtimes can be that different unless he has not loaded ammunition. And I noticed, that he has NOT fired off his guns post test. Also, did he open the cooling shutters?

I would suggest he redoes the test does not stop the recording till he fires off his guns till they are empty, 32 seconds worth of fire is equivalent to full ammo load. Also set the cooling shutters to at least RAD 2. (real life shutters were open)

I will do the test myself at 77/78% power and see what results I get. If my times vary that much from his, I think we can discount his as NOT being done with the correct loadout.

Which is, for those not noting it from the earlier posts in the thread:

100% fuel, Extra Ammunition, no drop tanks or external stores, Rad setting 2.

There is also an inherent inaccuracy in doing the tests at 77/78 % power setting with no other changes, in that as we can clearly see from the data in Tagert's Pdf, while the manifold pressure is close to historical at 42.5, higher than it should be at 42, his RPM remains at the maximum of 2700. The actual tests of the historical aircraft had boost at 42, and RPM at 2550.

And while those on this board will say we can't trust the gauges, those self-same gauges were used for 109 tests.

Finally, I would point to the only test we have run at full power, that being the P-47D22, at WEP, which all the player tests on this board reveal as being undermodelled. This is the one which we can say matches exactly the historical conditions, ie. Full throttle, 110% + WEP, Full RPM at 2700, Cooling Shutters full open, 100% fuel and extra ammo, but at the same time the results are consistently LESS than what was achieved historically.

Buzzsaw-
08-30-2005, 04:01 PM
Salute

Something which I have noticed, for the first time, not sure how I missed it before, probably because when I'm on full 110% power WEP, I'm not in the habit of looking at the gauges, but what I notice is that the gauges only show 52 inches MAP boost at full throttle WEP on the D10 and D22.

That would be the maximum boost setting for pre-water injected P-47's with only 2000 hp, and as we all know, both the D10 and D22 had Water Injection and 2300 hp.

Wondering if this is an indication we are only getting 2000 hp instead of the historical 2300?

Buzzsaw-
08-30-2005, 04:30 PM
Salute

Did a test of the P-47D10 at 77% throttle, full fuel, extra ammo, Rad 2, and using the NACA method and my results were far different from DGC263's. Clearly he did not load extra ammo.

Climbtimes:

Height --------------------- Test ----------------Historical

5000 feet/
1524 meters ---------------- 2:45 ---------------- 2:00

10,000 ft
3048 meters ---------------- 5:22 ---------------- 4:30

15,000 ft
4572 meters ---------------- 8:07 ---------------- 7:20

20,000 ft
6096 meters ---------------- 11:08 --------------- 10:50


So even with this skewed test of Normal power, with the engine at full 2700 RPM instead of 2550, the D10 is climbing too slow.

Have sent the test Ntrk to Tagert.

DGC763
08-30-2005, 06:01 PM
Did the same test as you Buzzsaw. and got to 20,000 in 10:56. Are you trying to tell me that a difference of 6 seconds over 11 minutes is significant???? Also how can you interpelate that graph so accurately? Will send the track to Tagert.

II_JG1Schpam
08-30-2005, 06:47 PM
Buzz,

I wouldn't trust the gauges. I honestly believe they don't properly represent what the FM is using.

There is a similar problem with the Fw190D-9. 100% throttle should be 3000 rpm and be the climb and combat power setting. But you have to get to 110% to get to 3000 rpm. The only way to get to 3250 rpm is via WEP/MW-50. It should be:

3000 rpm at 100%, Steig und Kampfleistung (climb and combat power)
3250 rpm at 110%, aka Start und Notleistung (take-off and emergency power)
3250 rpm at 110% + WEP, Sondernotleistung (special emergency power)

I haven't tested the speeds except for the Sondernotleistung and they are pretty accurate. So my assumption is that the other settings are going to be close too it's just that the gauges are not reading the right rpm.

p1ngu666
08-30-2005, 07:18 PM
also the p38 guages show same rpm/manifold pressure as normal p38s.

rpm was same on the r2800 series? hopefully its possible to work out the right %'s

Buzzsaw-
08-30-2005, 08:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DGC763:

Did the same test as you Buzzsaw. and got to 20,000 in 10:56.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a change. Your first test showed you making it to 20,000 in around 10:10. Obviously your load the second time was different.

Buzzsaw-
08-30-2005, 10:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:

rpm was same on the r2800 series?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maximum RPM was the same for all R-2800's, 2550 RPM NORMAL power, 2700 RPM MILITARY and COMBAT power, except the R-2800-57 which equipped the P-47M and N, which revved to 2600 RPM for NORMAL power, 2800 RPM for MILITARY and COMBAT power. OVERSPEED RPM for dives was 3000, except for R-2800-57 which was 3100 RPM

You can see the details on the AMERICA'S HUNDRED THOUSAND table I posted earlier.

Badsight.
08-30-2005, 10:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
S10,000 ft
3048 meters ---------------- 5:22 ---------------- 4:30



20,000 ft
6096 meters ---------------- 11:08 --------------- 10:50


So even with this skewed test of Normal power, with the engine at full 2700 RPM instead of 2550, the D10 is climbing too slow. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>these 2 times are weired

its only a small percentage undermoddeled in the time-to-6K

but its severly slow in the time-to-3K ?!?!?!

& this TTC test was performed according to the cockpit guages ? , i dont trust the cockpit guages anymore after what ive seen over the last few months.

TAGERT.
08-30-2005, 11:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Did a test of the P-47D10 at 77% throttle, full fuel, extra ammo, Rad 2, and using the NACA method and my results were far different from DGC263's. Clearly he did not load extra ammo.

Climbtimes:

Height --------------------- Test ----------------Historical

5000 feet/
1524 meters ---------------- 2:45 ---------------- 2:00

10,000 ft
3048 meters ---------------- 5:22 ---------------- 4:30

15,000 ft
4572 meters ---------------- 8:07 ---------------- 7:20

20,000 ft
6096 meters ---------------- 11:08 --------------- 10:50


So even with this skewed test of Normal power, with the engine at full 2700 RPM instead of 2550, the D10 is climbing too slow.

Have sent the test Ntrk to Tagert. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Buzzsaw Here is the analysis of your flight

D10 @77% Throttle 100% RPM (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/P47/buzzsaw/BuzzSaw_D10_77throttle_100rpm.pdf)

Here is the summary of your time-to-alt

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
time altitude MP IAS
(min) (feet) (std) (mph)
--------------------------------------
1.00 659.78 42.49 174.61
2.00 2316.12 42.49 165.88
3.00 4085.91 42.49 163.20
4.00 5937.92 42.49 167.03
5.00 7840.90 42.49 166.01
6.00 9763.62 42.49 166.30
7.00 11674.84 42.49 170.27
8.00 13543.32 42.49 170.54
9.00 15337.83 42.49 165.09
10.00 17027.12 42.49 166.45
11.00 18579.95 42.49 164.91
12.00 19965.10 42.49 160.96
</pre>

PROS:
You followed the NASA method! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

CONS:
1) You did NOT use the Crimea map, thus all bets are off!
2) It took you too long to get off the ground.

SUGGESTIONS:
1) Use a TEST AIR STIP placed in on the water (sea level) than you can use the BREAK RELEASE to rev up before rolling.
2) Use the TAIL WHEEL LOCK than you wont need so much rudder at take off, thus improving your take off time.
3) Try climbing a little harder initially (~150mph IAS instead of your ~170mph IAS) which in turn will improve your TTC values overall.
4) Use the Crimea Map! It is the map that is closest to the STD ATM.

TAGERT.
08-30-2005, 11:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

I find it hard to accept DGC763's climbtimes can be that different unless he has not loaded ammunition. And I noticed, that he has NOT fired off his guns post test. Also, did he open the cooling shutters?

I would suggest he redoes the test does not stop the recording till he fires off his guns till they are empty, 32 seconds worth of fire is equivalent to full ammo load. Also set the cooling shutters to at least RAD 2. (real life shutters were open)

I will do the test myself at 77/78% power and see what results I get. If my times vary that much from his, I think we can discount his as NOT being done with the correct loadout.

Which is, for those not noting it from the earlier posts in the thread:

100% fuel, Extra Ammunition, no drop tanks or external stores, Rad setting 2.

There is also an inherent inaccuracy in doing the tests at 77/78 % power setting with no other changes, in that as we can clearly see from the data in Tagert's Pdf, while the manifold pressure is close to historical at 42.5, higher than it should be at 42, his RPM remains at the maximum of 2700. The actual tests of the historical aircraft had boost at 42, and RPM at 2550.

And while those on this board will say we can't trust the gauges, those self-same gauges were used for 109 tests.

Finally, I would point to the only test we have run at full power, that being the P-47D22, at WEP, which all the player tests on this board reveal as being undermodelled. This is the one which we can say matches exactly the historical conditions, ie. Full throttle, 110% + WEP, Full RPM at 2700, Cooling Shutters full open, 100% fuel and extra ammo, but at the same time the results are consistently LESS than what was achieved historically. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I need to convert the "kg" to "gal", problem is differnts types of fuel have different conversions. On that note, in DGC763's last test his "kg" was at 900+ and your last test was at 1000+. I dont remember what type DGC763's P47 was, I could look so maybe the difference is in how much two different versions can carry? If not, and they were both D-10s, than DGC763 had less fuel loaded than you did?

p1ngu666
08-31-2005, 02:17 AM
theres a difference in american gallons and english or other, helpfully

DGC763
08-31-2005, 02:45 AM
I used 90% fuel so as to take into account the fuel used during run-up. New track is in the mail.

Buzzsaw-
08-31-2005, 09:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:

PROS:
You followed the NASA method! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

CONS:
1) You did NOT use the Crimea map, thus all bets are off!
2) It took you too long to get off the ground.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The airfield I used was at 0 altitude, it was a dogfight island map and they are right at sea level, thus they are as good as putting an airfield in the sea.

As far as taking too long to get off the ground:

I took my times from the instant the wheels lifted, not from the start of my roll.

In regards to DGC263 loading 90% fuel, that is unacceptable. All historical tests were done with FULL 100% fuel load. It is clear he is attempting to show the P-47 is climbing better than it actually does by using less fuel and ammo in the test aircraft.

TAGERT.
08-31-2005, 09:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
The airfield I used was at 0 altitude, it was a dogfight island map and they are right at sea level, thus they are as good as putting an airfield in the sea. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That may be true, BUT! Oleg has said the ONLY map that can be used for testing purposes is the crima map. In that the crima map is the map that is closest to the std atm.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
As far as taking too long to get off the ground:

I took my times from the instant the wheels lifted, not from the start of my roll. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Than disregard my http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif for using the NASA method.. In that you did not. If your only going to use part of it, you might as well not use any of it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
In regards to DGC263 loading 90% fuel, that is unacceptable. All historical tests were done with FULL 100% fuel load. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe.. It is true that some tests begin with 100% fuel loads, but, some fule (~50gal in the P38 case) is burned during take off preperations. Thus something a little less would not be a show stopper imho. I think the 90% may be a good number, but, that is something I would do after I have proven that it can not be done at 100%.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
It is clear he is attempting to show the P-47 is climbing better than it actually does by using less fuel and ammo in the test aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I dont know, other than the ammo thing I think DGC763 has been on the up and up! He is a very good test pilot.. thats all.

Buzzsaw-
08-31-2005, 09:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:

...this TTC test was performed according to the cockpit guages ? , i dont trust the cockpit guages anymore after what ive seen over the last few months.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it was not done with the RPM set by the cockpit gauges, or was boost set by this method. Instead I set throttle at 77% which is the same percentage as 1625 hp, NORMAL power is to COMBAT power 2300 hp, ie. 77% of it.

Of course, this does not reflect the real RPM of a historical NORMAL power aircraft, which was 2550, the test aircraft is at 2700 RPM at 77% power, which is going to give better climb times, and skew the test. Using the gauges is more accurate, however since there has been such a chorus of whines regarding the gauges, we are doing the tests this way. Funny, I didn't hear these complaints about the gauges when the 109's were being tested. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Buzzsaw-
08-31-2005, 09:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:

I think the 90% may be a good number, but, that is something I would do after I have proven that it can not be done at 100%.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where do you get the idea that 90% is a GOOD number??????

Tests were done at 100% fuel historically. Starting at 90% is going to skew the tests the same as if no ammo was loaded. And by the way, how do you get the idea he is a good test pilot, when the test criteria I laid out in the VERY first post noted full ammo and fuel, and he does his tests at less ammo and 90% fuel, WITHOUT telling anyone he is doing so? Only when I call him on it and ask to see a track with ammo fired, and only when you note that he has 900 fuel loaded instead of 1000 does he admit it... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Now let's get back to the one test we can say the boost settings and rpm ARE correct.

That is the P-47D22 test at COMBAT power, (full rpm, full boost, full throttle) on Chart 31. Tests of the game aircraft at 2700 rpm and 110% power WEP clearly show it to be undermodelled.

Buzzsaw-
08-31-2005, 09:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:

Than disregard my http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif for using the NASA method.. In that you did not. If your only going to use part of it, you might as well not use any of it.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where is the NASA method description please, I will do the test again.

TAGERT.
08-31-2005, 09:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Where do you get the idea that 90% is a GOOD number?????? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The idea comes from the fact that this is a simulation of a real airplane.. The simulation does NOT require any time to warm up before you take off.. A real plane and engine does. And it gets even worse for NACA like testing in that a lot of measurements were made during the prep flight checks.. Thus burning even more fuel. As for 90%, I don't know if that is a good number, but one thing is for sure, once the wheels came off the ground in real life, the tanks were NOT 100% full.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Tests were done at 100% fuel historically. Starting at 90% is going to skew the tests the same as if no ammo was loaded. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>See above.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Now let's get back to the one test we can say the boost settings and rpm ARE correct. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed, but, know this, I wont bother processing any more tracks that are NOT done on the Crimea map. You have to at least use that map for any of this to mean anything to Oleg. Otherwise your wasting his and my time.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
That is the P-47D22 test at COMBAT power on Chart 31. Tests of the game aircraft clearly show it to be undermodelled. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Cool! Also know that I added an AMMO counter that counts how many seconds worth of ammo was fired. Therefore, for all future testing I recommend that everyone fire their guns to remove that one question mark and source of accusation.

Buzzsaw-
08-31-2005, 10:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:

The idea comes from the fact that this is a simulation of a real airplane.. The simulation does NOT require any time to warm up before you take off.. A real plane and engine does. And it gets even worse for NACA like testing in that a lot of measurements were made during the prep flight checks.. Thus burning even more fuel.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Actually, NACA tests use a small additional test tank in most instances to burn for those preliminary warmups and tests. Or they top the aircraft's tank off before takeoff. They KNOW fuel burnt reduces weight.

Meanwhile DCG263 is trying to tell me that starting at 90% is BETTER? In that case, we're going to be down to 88% fuel by the time we take off. Sorry I DON'T buy that.

Finally, none of this soulsearched about fuel burnt happened when the testing of 109's happened. The fuel was 100%. PERIOD.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT:

Also know that I added an AMMO counter that counts how many seconds worth of ammo was fired. Therefore, for all future testing I recommend that everyone fire their guns to remove that one question mark and source of accusation.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You should also add a RAD opening colum. ALL USAAF aircraft tested were done with rads open.

Diablo310th
08-31-2005, 10:40 AM
All these tests are great..especially if Oleg will consider them in making changes. One thing that has to be done for sure tho is that all testing needs to be done using Olegs standards for tests...ie. Crimea map, noon, etc. Tagert...put together one set of test conditions and everyone please use these and these only to test and make comparisons with. For sure any tests and results not done this way will not be considered by Oleg. He has made this clear many times in the past. I would rally like to see the Jug's climb, dive, and power settings historically correct. Please gather all the necessary data and send to oleg ASAP so we have some chance of it being included in the next patch..whenever that is supposed to be. Oh and also...if tests could be done using DeviceLink (UDPGraph) for gathering raw data that would be nice then Tagert could convert all these to useful charts.

DGC763
08-31-2005, 03:43 PM
Ok Buzzsaw I will do a D-22 test at combat power with rad at 2 and with the extra ammo and etc.

You claim to know how these test were conducted, "radiator open" "Full Tanks" yet you use a different method than the NASA. Perhaps you can point me to these documents that say all USAAF test were conducted with radiator open (and what setting.)You also say that NACA topped up fuel before take-off or put in a small tank to account for warm-up, can you point to where this information can be found?

Also how are the times going to be accurate withe the D-22 considering that it is not clean? What allowance in time difference will that make?

DGC763
08-31-2005, 04:17 PM
Also the line you are refering too in graph 31 is based on republics data. Now what conditions did they use? There is no mention of weight on those lines.

Buzzsaw-
08-31-2005, 09:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DGC763:

Ok Buzzsaw I will do a D-22 test at combat power with rad at 2 and with the extra ammo and etc.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, you don't do THAT test at Rad 2, you do it aT FULL open, because the engine will overheat during the test, even at FULL open, but if you open FULL, it will not damage itself, and a real life pilot would do whatever was nessesary to prevent engine damage.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DGC763:

You claim to know how these test were conducted, "radiator open" "Full Tanks" yet you use a different method than the NASA.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I used what I understood was OLEG'S method. That would be: Crimea Map, 0 altitude, starting speed 300 kph. Tagert was the one who suggested we had to use the NACA method.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DGC763:

Perhaps you can point me to these documents that say all USAAF test were conducted with radiator open.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All aircraft in WWII operated with radiators open when climbing. If you'd bother to look at the pilot manuals and the instructions for climbing, you'd understand that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DGC763:

Also how are the times going to be accurate withe the D-22 considering that it is not clean?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The D22 came STANDARD with wingpods for drop tanks and bombs. You haven't bothered to do your research. But you aren't interested in exactly how the aircraft performed anyway, are you? You have another agenda.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DGC763:

You also say that NACA topped up fuel before take-off or put in a small tank to account for warm-up, can you point to where this information can be found?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

DCG263, it is clear that you have an agenda, that being to ensure that the P-47 is undermodelled. You have acted in a completely dishonest manner, using less than full fuel, not loading ammunition, not opening radiators, and generally doing whatever you can to skew the tests. I could spend an hour or two looking through NACA documents to find the reference to this, but frankly you're not worth it. You were caught out acting dishonestly, now you are trying to deflect the criticism by putting out this spurious argument about fuel.

I would suggest you do the research and PROVE to me that tests were conducted with less than full fuel.

Here is the NACA report page:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.cgi?method=ordering&oaiID=oa...nasa.gov:19790073957 (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.cgi?method=ordering&amp;oaiID=oai:casi.ntrs.nasa .gov:19790073957)

Every other aircraft in the game had its tests done with full fuel, but somehow now we are testing US aircraft, it becomes an issue. Smells like a double standard to me.

WWMaxGunz
08-31-2005, 09:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Suggest that time zero of the RL data was the start of actual climb and not rollout
on the ground. To that end it would maybe be better to shift the red curve left until
the sustained climb (after the first lift done a bit soon there) lies even with the
others. Then I see the red climb curve would lie between Republic and USAAF data,
closer to the factory curve than the USAAF curve. Basically, match the slopes at all
alts above 500 ft and I think you'll find a more real picture. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Either that or the "blue" curves are averages. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, you need to look again. The blue circles are data points and the lines are best fit
curves to the data. And just looking at the top graph, the circles trend down to the zero
alt at zero time either exactly or really d@mn close.

The curves are all averages, but the data points are not. For those blue line planes to
have a 30 second runup and then still make those points around 1 minute and 2500 ft they
would have had to climbed at 5000 ft/min for 30 seconds. And then in the next minute they
would have had to climb at 2500 ft/min. The next minute, just a bit less per minute.

You can say average but if they started so fast did they hit the 1 min point moving at
steady climb? Did they build up enormous speed and zoom? The red curve pilot did not,
he got airborn then got his gear and flaps up, stabilized and hit best climb speed.

It all makes a difference in when the clock is started. If there is no time for the
rollout, gear and flaps up and speed build to climb speed then it ain't really started
from brakes off. Tagert showed the graph with curves from brakes off = time zero and
all but one plane's curve have that time. That one is anomalous. And data from sources
that do not state time zero is brakes off shouldn't be regarded as such, especially if
the data points directly to best sustained climb rates beginning at zero second.

No need to be bothered at all. What counts is the climb rate anyway, the change in alt
for change in time. That is the slope of the curves at any time shown. And from what I
see there the slope of the red line once above 500 ft (to be safe, it's maybe less) is
very close to the slope of the blue lines and looks steeper than the USAAF line somewhere
around 8000 ft up.

I'm not even going to bother about that second ROC graph because the horizontal scale is
exaggerated and it appears that elapsed time was used to plot the red curve rather than
change in alt at every instant. Otherwise it wouldn't start so far to the left.

Yessir, one picture is worth a page of data. But ya gotta know how to read the data
even as a picture.

faustnik
08-31-2005, 09:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Okay, you need to look again. The blue circles are data points and the lines are best fit
curves to the data. And just looking at the top graph, the circles trend down to the zero
alt at zero time either exactly or really d@mn close. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I see that now. Thanks Neal! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Buzzsaw-
08-31-2005, 09:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

And from what I
see there the slope of the red line once above 500 ft (to be safe, it's maybe less) is
very close to the slope of the blue lines and looks steeper than the USAAF line somewhere
around 8000 ft up.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are commenting on a climb result which was obtained by a pilot who did not load ammunition or full fuel, and thus the results obtained are completely misleading and will not match the real performance of the ingame aircraft when loaded to the conditions of the historical aircraft.

All of DCG263's climb results are invalid and people commenting as though they are relevant are contributing to a lie and the continued mismodelling of the P-47's.

WWMaxGunz
08-31-2005, 09:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:

...this TTC test was performed according to the cockpit guages ? , i dont trust the cockpit guages anymore after what ive seen over the last few months.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it was not done with the RPM set by the cockpit gauges, or was boost set by this method. Instead I set throttle at 77% which is the same percentage as 1625 hp, NORMAL power is to COMBAT power 2300 hp, ie. 77% of it.

Of course, this does not reflect the real RPM of a historical NORMAL power aircraft, which was 2550, the test aircraft is at 2700 RPM at 77% power, which is going to give better climb times, and skew the test. Using the gauges is more accurate, however since there has been such a chorus of whines regarding the gauges, we are doing the tests this way. Funny, I didn't hear these complaints about the gauges when the 109's were being tested. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can control the prop rpms by using 'manual' pitch control. Set the percent to 94%,
2550/2700 = .9444444.

TAGERT.
08-31-2005, 09:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Okay, you need to look again. The blue circles are data points and the lines are best fit
curves to the data. And just looking at the top graph, the circles trend down to the zero
alt at zero time either exactly or really d@mn close.

The curves are all averages, but the data points are not. For those blue line planes to
have a 30 second runup and then still make those points around 1 minute and 2500 ft they
would have had to climbed at 5000 ft/min for 30 seconds. And then in the next minute they
would have had to climb at 2500 ft/min. The next minute, just a bit less per minute.

You can say average but if they started so fast did they hit the 1 min point moving at
steady climb? Did they build up enormous speed and zoom? The red curve pilot did not,
he got airborn then got his gear and flaps up, stabilized and hit best climb speed.

It all makes a difference in when the clock is started. If there is no time for the
rollout, gear and flaps up and speed build to climb speed then it ain't really started
from brakes off. Tagert showed the graph with curves from brakes off = time zero and
all but one plane's curve have that time. That one is anomalous. And data from sources
that do not state time zero is brakes off shouldn't be regarded as such, especially if
the data points directly to best sustained climb rates beginning at zero second.

No need to be bothered at all. What counts is the climb rate anyway, the change in alt
for change in time. That is the slope of the curves at any time shown. And from what I
see there the slope of the red line once above 500 ft (to be safe, it's maybe less) is
very close to the slope of the blue lines and looks steeper than the USAAF line somewhere
around 8000 ft up.

I'm not even going to bother about that second ROC graph because the horizontal scale is
exaggerated and it appears that elapsed time was used to plot the red curve rather than
change in alt at every instant. Otherwise it wouldn't start so far to the left. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Allmost correct, but you made one fatal mistake!

You *ASSUMED* that those DATA points (the blue circles and diamonds) were the original data points.

They are NOT!

I obtained those DATA points by visually taking them from those curves listed in the books.. i.e. the *orginal* polynomial fits of the *original* data points.

I printed them out on paper and measured them to get the best data point I could. Than *I* applied a polynomial fit to those data points. That is to say I poly fitted the poly fitted data points.. Which is NOT to be confused with the orginal data points.

SAVVY?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Yessir, one picture is worth a page of data. But ya gotta know how to read the data
even as a picture. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed 100%! Ya gotta know how to read the data.. But before you can do that ya gotta know what it is your looking at! Too bad for you that you didn't realize the data points you were a *reading* were NOT the orginal data points, but the data points I extracted from the polynomial fit they did 60 years ago and not the original data points they used to generate their polynomial fits from.

Buzzsaw-
08-31-2005, 10:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

You can control the prop rpms by using 'manual' pitch control. Set the percent to 94%,
2550/2700 = .9444444.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you BOTHERED to read this thread???

That is exactly what I did in my first tests. 94%. Which I submitted to Tagert. And which the Luftwaffe side suggested were invalid and insisted that no gauge read figures such as RPM could be valid.

WWMaxGunz
08-31-2005, 10:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

And from what I
see there the slope of the red line once above 500 ft (to be safe, it's maybe less) is
very close to the slope of the blue lines and looks steeper than the USAAF line somewhere
around 8000 ft up.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are commenting on a climb result which was obtained by a pilot who did not load ammunition or full fuel, and thus the results obtained are completely misleading and will not match the real performance of the ingame aircraft when loaded to the conditions of the historical aircraft.

All of DCG263's climb results are invalid and people commenting as though they are relevant are contributing to a lie and the continued mismodelling of the P-47's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

His climb beat the USAAF data by a KNOWN amount. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif And that can be accounted for.

10% less fuel and how much less weight in ammo? That makes the whole plane how much lighter?

Was it Ugly Kid who posted from that rather expensive book the things like so much % less
weight gets the so much other % better climb? There were several lines of these we were
given. The book was written by a US WWII fighter designer during a short vacation and the
pages posted here were very good. Maybe it was Blutarski who had the book.

Anyway, a fine for our purposes correction can be applied to the data or the new 'tests' will
bring out more 'accurately' derived data. So no need to throw a fit and make accusations.

BTW, I would also like to see the source of your information on NACA tests including the
topping up of tanks just before rollout, etc. You do have that explicitly and it is not
in any way supposition on your part? I do see you state that the rads must have been full
open when gee, didn't they have automatic control? Did ALL tests of fighters in climbs
have the rads full open? I've read of one test of IIRC a Spitfire run with the rads wired
shut stated right in the documents. That is IIRC, it might have been a 109 even. It's been
so long but was haggled over many times here years ago.

Do you have an agenda that says everything must be done to slow the P-47's down for tests
and somehow get a better one than should be?

Alert! AGENDAS! AGENDAS! They're EVERYWHERE! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Last question. Is Kurfy a split personality and are you the other one?

Buzzsaw-
08-31-2005, 10:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

His climb beat the USAAF data by a KNOWN amount. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif And that can be accounted for.

10% less fuel and how much less weight in ammo? That makes the whole plane how much lighter?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is no requirement to do a calculation determining how much the climbrate was increased by a particular fuel load, ammo load etc. The tester simply needs to do the test at historical conditions instead of pretending to and then presenting his results as though he did.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

BTW, I would also like to see the source of your information on NACA tests including the
topping up of tanks just before rollout, etc.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Another example of you not bothering to read the thread. Look at the NASA page describing climbtest criteria previously posted by Tagert:

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Education/OnlineEd/Intro2Flight/nasclmb.html

Quote:

"In order to accurately establish the weight at the start of the maneuver, a special fueling and weight measurement may precede the engine start, and the airplane might be positioned closer to the runway to avoid a long taxi time."

As usual Max, your pseudo objectivity is coming to the fore, and your agenda, that being to downgrade any allied aircraft, and ensure the arcade FM of the 109 remains, is becoming clear again.

Hoarmurath
08-31-2005, 10:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Don't use my charts they are complete BS!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you Tagert for making it clear...

WWMaxGunz
08-31-2005, 10:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:

Allmost correct, but you made one fatal mistake!

You *ASSUMED* that those DATA points (the blue circles and diamonds) were the original data points.

They are NOT!

I obtained those DATA points by visually taking them from those curves listed in the books.. i.e. the *orginal* polynomial fits of the *original* data points.

I printed them out on paper and measured them to get the best data point I could. Than *I* applied a polynomial fit to those data points. That is to say I poly fitted the poly fitted data points.. Which is NOT to be confused with the orginal data points.

SAVVY?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ouch!

Did you get that errrr, data, from the chart labelled GRAPH 30 you posted on page 6?
If so then hey, it's pretty clear they started counting time when the planes entered
into steady climb. Or at least it is to me.

It's still good data since you can see the sustained ROC's at different alts.

Better data IMO is to be found on the P-47D-10 line on the big chart you also posted
on page 6. The CONFIDENTIAL, WAR EMERGENCY CLIMB COMPARISON chart. The D-10 curve
on that one does begin steady climb at about 30 seconds in for one thing.

Instead of straining your eyes may I suggest doing a scan at 600x600 of just part of
the graph at a time and then working off the magnified image obtained? I can see it's
going to be a trick accounting for the page not being totally flat on the scanner though,
but I know you can handle that easily enough. 600x600 may be too high really anyway.
I've used that to read difficult text on circuit boards and chips (remember when it was
banks of 9 dips to fill RAM?) after twiddling the brightness and contrast. At 1200x1200
it's amazing how detailed the Lincoln statue on the back of a penny is, but H I've had
the same read the tooth of the paper on an image and ruin it so I had to back the res
down. Yes, it wasn't fine paper.

TAGERT.
08-31-2005, 10:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Don't use my charts they are complete BS!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you Tagert for making it clear... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You poor thing!

Tell you what, send me your home address and Ill have my 6 year old niece draw something up with her crayons that should be to what you use to seeing on a daily bases! ROTFLMAO!

Hoarmurath
08-31-2005, 10:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Tell you what, send me your home address and Ill have my 6 year old niece draw something up with her crayons that should be to what you use to seeing on a daily bases! ROTFLMAO! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean you will stop posting her work on the forum?

TAGERT.
08-31-2005, 10:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Ouch! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Did you get that errrr, data, from the chart labelled GRAPH 30 you posted on page 6? If so then hey, it's pretty clear they started counting time when the planes entered into steady climb. Or at least it is to me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, a lot of people make that mistake.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
It's still good data since you can see the sustained ROC's at different alts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Better data IMO is to be found on the P-47D-10 line on the big chart you also posted on page 6. The CONFIDENTIAL, WAR EMERGENCY CLIMB COMPARISON chart. The D-10 curve on that one does begin steady climb at about 30 seconds in for one thing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yet the P51 does not and shows it starting at zero.. So.. now we have to ask ourselves.. SELF.. Is it reasonable to think an airplane jumped off the runway at t=0 and started climbing at 2500fpm.. or is it more reasonable to assume these curves are polynomial fits of data points that are not shown. If you don't know which one to go with.. it would be the latter!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Instead of straining your eyes may I suggest doing a scan at 600x600 of just part of the graph at a time and then working off the magnified image obtained? I can see it's going to be a trick accounting for the page not being totally flat on the scanner though, but I know you can handle that easily enough. 600x600 may be too high really anyway. I've used that to read difficult text on circuit boards and chips (remember when it was banks of 9 dips to fill RAM?) after twiddling the brightness and contrast. At 1200x1200 it's amazing how detailed the Lincoln statue on the back of a penny is, but H I've had the same read the tooth of the paper on an image and ruin it so I had to back the res down. Yes, it wasn't fine paper. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I actually scanned them in first, then pulled them into my drafting tool to apply a measuring grid. Then I printed them out, one so I could use the hard copy to enter the data into Math Cad and two because they look cool!

TAGERT.
08-31-2005, 10:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Tell you what, send me your home address and Ill have my 6 year old niece draw something up with her crayons that should be to what you use to seeing on a daily bases! ROTFLMAO! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean you will stop posting her work on the forum? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Poor hoarmouth.. So wants to be part of the solution.. But cant, so is happy just being one of the many problems

WWMaxGunz
08-31-2005, 10:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

His climb beat the USAAF data by a KNOWN amount. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif And that can be accounted for.

10% less fuel and how much less weight in ammo? That makes the whole plane how much lighter?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is no requirement to do a calculation determining how much the climbrate was increased by a particular fuel load, ammo load etc. The tester simply needs to do the test at historical conditions instead of pretending to and then presenting his results as though he did.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

BTW, I would also like to see the source of your information on NACA tests including the
topping up of tanks just before rollout, etc.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Another example of you not bothering to read the thread. Look at the NASA page describing climbtest criteria previously posted by Tagert:

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Education/OnlineEd/Intro2Flight/nasclmb.html

Quote:

"In order to accurately establish the weight at the start of the maneuver, a special fueling and weight measurement may precede the engine start, and the airplane might be positioned closer to the runway to avoid a long taxi time."

As usual Max, your pseudo objectivity is coming to the fore, and your agenda, that being to downgrade any allied aircraft, and ensure the arcade FM of the 109 remains, is becoming clear again. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can quit trying to jerk me off right now.

"The starting point for a check climb is USUALLY brake release at the start of the takeoff roll."

Last time I checked, 'usually' is not 'always'.

And special fueling and weight measurement preceeding engine start is NOT the same as topping off
the tanks just before takeoff. That paragraph says SQUAT about pre-warming the engine. Cripes,
there's no fuel added after taxiing to the end of the runway! That's why they start them close!

But screw all that because the whole procedures list is entirely MODERN. As in jet engines that
may or may not be high-bypass and may or may not use significant amounts of fuel taxi, there are
==corporate== jets that have that problem and don't down fuel like military jets. And how do
the parts about AFTERBURNERS fit anyway?

So STUFF IT with the paranoia about agendas. When you want to claim that the sim plane doesn't
match HISTORICAL DATA then you have to test the same plane, weight, prop, etc, in the sim as
the one the data is for and do it the same way, which requires being able to show HOW the data
was arrived at.

Playing best data must be met at worst conditions and then claiming everyone who doesn't like
your 'rules' or even questions anything about them is out to get you is just so much smoke
since YOU don't miss a chance to slant the field yourself.

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

I do have to say that I'm getting MORE and MORE reminded of the big 109K doesn't turn fast
enough at THIS speed and THIS altitude with THIS trim setting (ie, one hand behind my back)
because of THIS drawing with only SOME conditions stated. And everyone who didn't play along
was a Red Whiner with an agenda.

Guess who was the quarterback for that one?

I was anti-LW for that game, but NOW I have an agenda to assure the 109's are overmodelled!
Boooooooooo-Hooooooooooo!
How will I EVER get over that one?

WWMaxGunz
08-31-2005, 11:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Ouch! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Did you get that errrr, data, from the chart labelled GRAPH 30 you posted on page 6? If so then hey, it's pretty clear they started counting time when the planes entered into steady climb. Or at least it is to me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, a lot of people make that mistake.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
It's still good data since you can see the sustained ROC's at different alts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Better data IMO is to be found on the P-47D-10 line on the big chart you also posted on page 6. The CONFIDENTIAL, WAR EMERGENCY CLIMB COMPARISON chart. The D-10 curve on that one does begin steady climb at about 30 seconds in for one thing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yet the P51 does not and shows it starting at zero.. So.. now we have to ask ourselves.. SELF.. Is it reasonable to think an airplane jumped off the runway at t=0 and started climbing at 2500fpm.. or is it more reasonable to assume these curves are polynomial fits of data points that are not shown. If you don't know which one to go with.. it would be the latter!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Instead of straining your eyes may I suggest doing a scan at 600x600 of just part of the graph at a time and then working off the magnified image obtained? I can see it's going to be a trick accounting for the page not being totally flat on the scanner though, but I know you can handle that easily enough. 600x600 may be too high really anyway. I've used that to read difficult text on circuit boards and chips (remember when it was banks of 9 dips to fill RAM?) after twiddling the brightness and contrast. At 1200x1200 it's amazing how detailed the Lincoln statue on the back of a penny is, but H I've had the same read the tooth of the paper on an image and ruin it so I had to back the res down. Yes, it wasn't fine paper. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I actually scanned them in first, then pulled them into my drafting tool to apply a measuring grid. Then I printed them out, one so I could use the hard copy to enter the data into Math Cad and two because they look cool! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My gut feeling is to throw the P-51B curve on that better chart out in the face of the
other, better collected and represented data sets. The 51B curve may be nothing more
than estimated data or it may have been collected by a different method but it is clearly
not conformant to what the others are, so pitch it and find better.

Major envy on your software tools. Perks of the job? I used to collect compilers here
and there.

Buzzsaw-
08-31-2005, 11:06 PM
Salute

Here is a catalogue of DGC263's test methodology... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

First he does a test with the D22 at WEP:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DGC763:

I gave it a crack, with the D-22. Times I got are as follows. First time is from brakes release, second is from unstick and third is from wheels up.

5000' 2:15 2:05 1:59
10,000 3:58 3:49 3:43
15,000 5:45 5:34 5:28
20,000 7:40 7:31 7:25

Crimea noon, 110% WEP no overheat, rad closed. 100 fuel.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then he claims he got even better results.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DGC763:

I made an error, adjusted times are as follows.
I got 7:13 from lift off

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

TAGERT points out a minor detail. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT:

The air base you started from is 250ft off of the ground.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I make clear that extra ammunition needs to be loaded to match the standard loaded weight. (which I show in charts)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BUZZSAW-:

Do your tests at full rad opening. And at the end of your test, after you pass 6100 meters, fire your guns till they run out. Should be 32 seconds worth of fire. (load extra ammo, that was normal ammo load for P-47's)

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

FRITZGRYPHON another tester is honest enough to admit doing so makes a difference:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FRITZGRYPHON:

Loading extra ammo made a large difference. I get 7:50 with that.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

However, DGC263 is still looking for ways to get an edge and skew the test:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DGC763:

Test done at 78% and sent to Tagert, you maybe surprised by the results.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But he doesn't show he loaded any ammo. No guns fired at the end of the test as noted by TAGERT:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT:

...Since your obtaining such good times, you should fire all your ammo at the end of your climb, thus proving you took a full ammo load.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And then TAGERT catches the fact that DGC263 has loaded low fuel, something which he had conveniently neglected to mention earlier.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT:

...in DGC763's last test his "kg" was at 900+ and your last test was at 1000+. I dont remember what type DGC763's P47 was, I could look so maybe the difference is in how much two different versions can carry? If not, and they were both D-10s, than DGC763 had less fuel loaded than you did?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

DGC263 makes an excuse, suggesting that 10% of the aircraft's fuel could be burnt in a takeoff.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DGC763:

I used 90% fuel so as to take into account the fuel used during run-up.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


This is despite the fact that he's obviously read the NACA methodology for testing, since he is complimented by TAGERT for sticking to that means of testing, and thus must have read the notes in that method noting topping up of tanks:

"In order to accurately establish the weight at the start of the maneuver, a special fueling and weight measurement may precede the engine start, and the airplane might be positioned closer to the runway to avoid a long taxi time." Thus since NACA topped up tanks prior to takeoff, reducing fuel to 90% is patently unhistorical.

Finally, after being caught out, DGC263 now is promising to do the tests with full fuel and ammo. (but I haven't seen any yet)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DGC763:

Ok Buzzsaw I will do a D-22 test at combat power with rad at 2 and with the extra ammo and etc.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

TAGERT.
08-31-2005, 11:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
My gut feeling is to throw the P-51B curve on that better chart out in the face of the other, better collected and represented data sets. The 51B curve may be nothing more than estimated data or it may have been collected by a different method but it is clearly not conformant to what the others are, so pitch it and find better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I wouldnt be quick to toss it.. In that most TTC curves show them stating at zero. Im could explaine why this is just an artifact of polynomial fitting of curves, but it would be over most peoples heads, And to belive otherwise means you would have to belive those plots collected 60+ years ago were that complete and that smooth.

But in a nut shell, a slower off the line and inital climbing aircraft is going to have a data point lower and farther out. That data point will cause a polynomial fit to NOT pass through zero.

That is all I care to say on the mater, let alone argue about it, So, I will say is this.. You guys can belive what ever you want to belive, I dont really care! The only person Im concerned with here name starts with an O, and Im sure he has seen enough of this and other polynomial fits of data ponits to realise what is gonig on here.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Major envy on your software tools. Perks of the job? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>One of many! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I used to collect compilers here and there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I got a few myself! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT.
08-31-2005, 11:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
This is despite the fact that he's obviously read the NACA methodology for testing, since he is complimented by TAGERT for sticking to that means of testing, and thus must have read the notes in that method noting topping up of tanks:

"In order to accurately establish the weight at the start of the maneuver, a special fueling and weight measurement may precede the engine start, and the airplane might be positioned closer to the runway to avoid a long taxi time." Thus since NACA topped up tanks prior to takeoff, reducing fuel to 90% is patently unhistorical. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Ahh, I have to agree with the others on this one Buzzsaw.. Taking MEASUREMENTS of the weight and fuel does NOT mean topping it off. As max pointed out, why bother starting close to the runway if your going to top them off?

Now I don't agree with max about this being a modern method, it aint, Tackaon showed us the modern energy method that was developed for fast climbing jets. I also don't agree with max on a lot of other issues.. As for DGC763.. Maybe he is.. Maybe he aint.. But one thing for sure, everything he has done up to now could just be an honest mistake!! So, give him the benefit of the doubt.. He is a good test pilot and can be useful!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Finally, after being caught out, DGC263 now is promising to do the tests with full fuel and ammo. (but I haven't seen any yet) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, I have not check my e-mail today.. Been to busy putting out fires here all night! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But seriously guys.. Can we ignore the true Luftwhiners here like Hoarmouth and move on? I mean, Maxx and DCG763 might seem like a pain here sometimes.. But deep down I think they may actually care more about the realism of it all instead of trying to gain some advantage for the Lufties like Hoarmouth.

Buzzsaw.. Give DCG763 the benefit of the doubt.. I have found that if you ask him to do it a certain way, he will.

Badsight.
08-31-2005, 11:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
No, it was not done with the RPM set by the cockpit gauges, or was boost set by this method. Instead I set throttle at 77% which is the same percentage as 1625 hp, NORMAL power is to COMBAT power 2300 hp, ie. 77% of it.

Of course, this does not reflect the real RPM of a historical NORMAL power aircraft, which was 2550, the test aircraft is at 2700 RPM at 77% power, which is going to give better climb times, and skew the test. Using the gauges is more accurate, however since there has been such a chorus of whines regarding the gauges, we are doing the tests this way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>ok RGRT

now up there you say the "test' A/C , that means your plane in FB right ? using 77% power setting in FB gives a higher RPM (extra 150 RPM)

this slight higher "in-cockpit" guage setting is still giving a under-performing TTC to 3 & 6K ?

thats wrong

& *IF* the "in-cockpit" guage is working in FB correctly , doing the TTC test at 2550 RPM to 3 & 6K is going to be even worse performing

the P-47 is badly performing up to 3K in climb power , & isnt quite as fast as it should be up to 6K

DGC763
09-01-2005, 01:34 AM
Buzzsaw I have rarely encountered someone as rude. I must be biased. I have rarely seen a bigger case of the pot calling kettle black. You have the hide to call me biased. What is your experience in real aircraft you ****! You have shown throughout the history of this game that you are without doubt one of, if not (Kunfurst and you tie IMHO) the most biased person in the community.

You have pointed to nowhere were it states the actual test conditions, you will happily point to the best results for a test i.e the data supplied by republic (where is the weight data on that line?) and happily make excuses when data like the D-10 chart is pointed out (of course Oleg must have put a HS 13'2 prop on it). "disregard the flight manula data."

I have a NACA report on climb test for a P-47 and it says that the mil power climb had to be abandoned at 23,000 due overheating. Now how is it you suppose they are able to come up with WEP or even MIL TTC test to above 30,000?

You also claim ALL USAAF test were done with radiators open. All is always a big statement. I concede that you are more than likely correct in this case, especially with looking at the above NACA doc. Yet I would note that even this doc does not mention the radiator settings, it could have been different. Flight manuals also contain limits on the use of WEP engine temp limits etc.(You aren't meant to overheat your engine ever) Things that would have be disregarded in order to accomplish what is on the charts. Test Flying is not the same as normal ops. That is why it is called TEST flying.

You say that it must be 100% fuel because the 109 was when it was tested, this does not sound like a quest for accuracy, to me (Perhaps more of your bias showing). You point to the notes in the NASA test, yet as others have pointed out, at no time does it state that the aircraft is filled up just prior to rolling.

How do you account for the differences between the republic and USAAF data if there is not difference in the testing, both the USAAF data and the flight manual data taper off yet the republic data is constant, why?

I want aircraft to perform to historical standards at the very least in comparitive terms, ALL of them. It would seem in some ways that you want the P-47 to under-perform just so you can bleet about it and demand more performance. It would seem you want it to perform on just a little more "equal"(I bet you would like P-47D-10's to perform to the standards of Bob Johnson one off) than the rest as it is quite obiviously one of, if not your favourite.

My methods may have been wrong and so have yours. Your original ascertions maybe correct. With Oleg stating that performance is up to 15% outside of historical due to engine limitations perhaps this is as good as it gets with this game engine.

o0kami
09-01-2005, 01:39 AM
just got a question about this testing stuff
I want to try perform this test but i want to know when this test is conducted is it producing using the Standard Day Density of 1.229kg/m^3 , specific volume .814m^3/kg, Pressure of 101.3kN/m^2 , Temperature of 15 C and a viscosity of 1.73x10^-5 N-s/m^2

and if it is in the game what would this map of place be that would have the Standard day

WWMaxGunz
09-01-2005, 07:18 AM
Crimea map summer is Standard air temp and pressure.

I for one think that if the data is for 2550 rpm then the plane should be flown at 2550.
Will the plane fly with less climb? Possibly but possibly not considering the power is
set below 80%. IRL the faster a prop turns the less efficient it is, you run faster to
be able to use more power less efficiently to get more total thrust. Running at reduced
power may indicate using a lower rpm, again IRL. I dunno about the sim so really perhaps
run the climbs both ways and take the best since the sim world is not perfect.

If the climb curves are goin to be thrown badly by did the time start at brakes off or
when the plane actually entered climb then hey, look at the actual ROC from 500 ft up
and see if that matches the historic data. If it does then the model works well enough.

CHART 30 posted says nada about when the time started. Going directly into best climb
from zero second and maintaining that all the way up? If it's soaked into an average
then the actual climb data must have been sparse indeed, it's no good to make close
comparisons with detailed data. Just how accurately does the sim have to comply with
an approximated curve anyway?

Diablo310th
09-01-2005, 07:21 AM
Tagert {quote} But seriously guys.. Can we ignore the true Luftwhiners here like Hoarmouth and move on? I mean, Maxx and DCG763 might seem like a pain here sometimes.. But deep down I think they may actually care more about the realism of it all instead of trying to gain some advantage for the Lufties like Hoarmouth.

Buzzsaw.. Give DCG763 the benefit of the doubt.. I have found that if you ask him to do it a certain way, he will.

____________________________________________

I couldn't agree more. has any of this been sent to Oleg yet? And if so..any word??

Badsight.
09-01-2005, 07:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Will the plane fly with less climb? Possibly but possibly not considering the power is
set below 80%. IRL the faster a prop turns the less efficient it is, you run faster to
be able to use more power less efficiently to get more total thrust. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>thats a speculation that should be reserved for when you post your 2550 RPM climb test results

the 2550 RPM climb times are not being met with 2700 RPM being used . . . . in FB according to Buzzsaw

the o - 3K TTC time looks badly underperforming

Buzzsaw-
09-01-2005, 09:58 AM
It's pretty clear what's going on here.

Tests done as closely as possible to historical show the aircraft underperforming in the game.

So the apologists then introduce all kinds of provisos to try to undermine those results, and to try to show that they aren't valid, ie. aircraft should have less than 100% fuel, shouldn't have ammo loaded, doesn't need to be run at the correct RPM, etc. etc.

Agenda: Keep the P-47 underperforming.

It is standard testing procedure unless otherwise noted, for aircraft to be tested at their NORMAL loaded weight. I have already posted charts showing the weights for the Razorback and the Bubbletop, the climbgraphs show them at those weights. Those are the weights they should be tested at. Anything else is an attempt to skew the results.

faustnik
09-01-2005, 01:22 PM
I am having some trouble understanding all the factors invlolved in testing the P-47 in the sim. Tagert, you know I really appreciate your graphs, but, I'm going to have to ask all of you for more help in figuring them out and setting standards for them.

First what are the standards used in the historical tests listed in the graphs?

- What was the weight of the a/c at takeoff?

- What was the fuel load?

- What was the aircraft configuration (clean, or with wing pylons)?

- What power settings were used?

- What climb speeds were used?

- At what point did the test start?

Next, how can we best approximate all of these in the sim?

Right now, we have several tests resulting in different curves. Tagert really seems to have a handle on what's needed for a proper test in the sim. Maybe we could hold off until a test is done to Tagert's 100% satisfaction with the sim-test matching the historical test as closely as possible and then generate a comparison graph?

I don't mean to bust anyone's nuts here, it just seems like the original question is going to get lost in arguements unless we all work on a common goal and get things back on-track. Isn't that the fun of it anyway, comparing the sim to real data, any maybe learning something in the process?


Thanks for all the work on this, it is an interesting subject. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Willey
09-01-2005, 03:17 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

II_JG1Schpam
09-01-2005, 06:52 PM
Buzz,

I'm trying to poo-poo what you've done, since I think you're onto something across the board, but I have a few comments and a question.

I did some quick speed testing in the '45 D-9. With MW-50 and at 110% throttle only speeds are very close to being dead-on, actually a little on the too-good side.

But when I dropped back to 90% which I assumed was the climb and combat setting the speeds fell short at SL and at 6600m. So my point is that the assumption that a given throttle % represents something historically may not be right. I figured at SL a Jumo 213A gives 1600PS at climb and combat and 1780PS for take-off power. 1600/1780 = 90% so 90% throttle would be combat. In fact if you look at the throttle in the cockpit 90% is close to the combat setting. But like I said the speeds were off and my gut feel is that the climbs would be off, too. But I didn't test climbs.

Did you try another throttle setting to see if that gave the climbs you were looking to achieve?

Buzzsaw-
09-01-2005, 07:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by II_JG1Schpam:

Did you try another throttle setting to see if that gave the climbs you were looking to achieve?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As mentioned, the one climbchart, showing the P-47D22 at WEP, does not require different throttle, or RPM settings or estimates to duplicate in the game. You can do that test at full throttle/WEP. Tests which I and FritzGryphon did shows the D22 climbing at at lower than historical rates. (at full fuel, Extra Ammo, and Rad full open)

Kocur_
09-01-2005, 11:00 PM
II_JG1Schpam!
Those numbers would be correct for the first Dores in 1944. For so called "D-9 1945" take off would be 1900PS without MW-50, not 1780PS on, as since autumn of 1944 all Jumo 213A were tweaked for this higher setting.

Is or is not games's D-22 equipped with padle blade prop? As we all know, those improved Jug's climbing significantly, worsening OTOH top speed a bit. Do D-22 speeds fit paddle blade or regular prop?

Buzzsaw-
09-01-2005, 11:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:

Is or is not games's D-22 equipped with padle blade prop? As we all know, those improved Jug's climbing significantly, worsening OTOH top speed a bit. Do D-22 speeds fit paddle blade or regular prop?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All D22's were equipped with paddle blades from the factory.

WWMaxGunz
09-02-2005, 12:16 AM
I've seen one chart that states time begins at the start of takeoff. One only.
On that chart 4 out of 5 curves bear out the zero time as the start of takeoff
and give a 30 second lead before sustained climb for those 4 planes.

I see other charts that all show sustained best climbs starting at time zero
which I'm assured is due to averaging. Well, the data being averaged must be
some widely spaced stuff to blow off 30 seconds takeoff and speed pickup. It's
definitely not something usable to judge the sim with in the face of better data.
Aren't there ROC data at alts, MP, RPM's and weights that have been posted here
many times? Takeoff, Climb and Landing Data charts, specifically?

No, those won't do. There's a neat trick where methods from on chart are mixed
with data from another to 'prove' the P-47 is undermodelled. It really is like
the 109K turn where in the sim you have limited strength while in the RL maneuver
there is no mention of strength but since trim is mentioned and it's impossible
to run the sim with that trim and achieve the turn it must 'prove' that the 109K
needs more elevator authority or less strength required on the stick or some other
uberizing change... which is BS. So now we can take however you can possibly climb
the P-47's in the sim, add time to get rolling and take off and then compare that
to climb time from a source where climb begins at second zero at the best ROC and
maintains that as well.

It's like a frikking magic key with smoke and mirrors. If the ROC's fail to match
the charts even without considering when time to alt starts then that's more like
some kind of solid evidence but hanging the word 'proof' on one regimin that the
comparison data doesn't explicitly support is too weak. "It must be averaged data"
is an excuse, an "I suppose", and no kind of proof at all. It didn't wash with the
109K or the German gyro gunsight, it don't wash with those mix'n'match charts, not
for me anyway.

There's clean data for the P-47D-10 on that NACA chart. And no question as to prop
blade thickness. So let's nobody pursue that. What's wrong there? Power not WEP?

TAGERT.
09-02-2005, 12:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I've seen one chart that states time begins at the start of takeoff. One only. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If I have said it once, I have said it a thousand times.

I give you, and everyone else permission to belive what ever they want to belive!

Because if ONE chart and the NASA sight is not enough to convice you.. than surly nothing I can say will.

If visually shifting the in-game curves (i.e. visually shifting them by 30sec) is beyond peoples abilities, then they really shouldnt be involved in any part of this discussion in the first place. That and I also provide the ROCs which are time independed. So, not much more I can do, I can not make up here in a few posts what the school systems failed to do in 12 years! There is one person here that I care about what he thinks, and his name starts with an O. If he deams the NASA method to be invalid, all this work is still useful, in that I know *he* is capable of visually subtrack 30sec from any point alone the in-game curve if needed.

So, again, just to be crystal! If you guys want to belive there are little green men and unmarked black helo's landing in your back yard.. Be my guest! No skin off my back!

TAGERT.
09-02-2005, 01:34 AM
DCG763 Here is the analysis of your flight

DCG763_P-47D-10_NOM_2.pdf (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/P47/dgc763/DGC763_P-47D-10_NOM_2.pdf)

Here is the summary of your time-to-alt

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
time altitude MP IAS
(min) (feet) (std) (mph)
--------------------------------------
1.00 1009.37 42.49 156.06
2.00 2938.51 42.49 152.97
3.00 4919.03 42.49 150.18
4.00 6928.48 42.49 152.80
5.00 8944.43 42.49 152.71
6.00 10944.45 42.49 153.39
7.00 12906.08 42.49 153.97
8.00 14806.91 42.49 152.19
9.00 16624.49 42.49 152.37
10.00 18336.39 42.49 151.78
11.00 19920.17 42.49 153.31
12.00 21353.39 42.49 156.01
</pre>

PROS:
You followed the NASA method! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

CONS:
none

SUGGESTIONS:
none

TAGERT.
09-02-2005, 01:34 AM
DCG763 Here is the analysis of your flight

DGC763_P-47D-22_2.pdf (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/P47/dgc763/DGC763_P-47D-22_2.pdf)

Here is the summary of your time-to-alt

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
time altitude MP IAS
(min) (feet) (std) (mph)
--------------------------------------
1.00 1278.97 49.97 149.99
2.00 3483.98 49.97 150.19
3.00 6265.26 49.97 152.19
4.00 9313.35 49.97 151.27
5.00 12318.79 49.97 149.12
6.00 14972.12 49.97 148.84
7.00 16963.88 49.97 147.05
8.00 17984.61 49.97 145.99
9.00 17724.84 50.87 376.35
</pre>

PROS:
You followed the NASA method! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

CONS:
none

SUGGESTIONS:
none

II_JG1Schpam
09-02-2005, 06:05 AM
Kocur,

I don't want to take away from the discussion here, so we can take it offline if you like, but here is my understanding of the in-game D-9 versus the historical D-9:

'44 D-9 represents the first operational D-9s:
sondernotlesitung = 1900PS
start und notleistung = 1780 PS for 30 minutes
steig und kampfleistung = 1600 PS no time limit

'45 D-9 represents the D-9s with MW-50:
sondernotlesitung with MW-50 = 2100 PS
start u. notleistung = 1780 PS for 30 minutes
steig u. kampfleistung = 1600 PS no time limit

The very first D-9s didn't have any WEP be it MW-50 or the 1900 PS setting. These very first D-9s could use the start u. notleistung setting for 10 minutes and the stieg u. kampfleistung setting for 30 minutes. After Sonderaktion-1900 the time limits changed.

Kocur_
09-02-2005, 08:18 AM
II_JG1Schpam!
PMhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

robban75
09-02-2005, 10:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by II_JG1Schpam:
'44 D-9 represents the first operational D-9s:
sondernotlesitung = 1900PS
start und notleistung = 1780 PS for 30 minutes
steig und kampfleistung = 1600 PS no time limit

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct, but it appears that the D-9 '44 you mention above is not the '44 variant we have in-game. In IL2/PF we have a D-9 using C3 fuel with C3 injection. Charts shows that the C3 fueled variant was faster than the '45 D-9, but not by much.

WWMaxGunz
09-02-2005, 10:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I've seen one chart that states time begins at the start of takeoff. One only. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If I have said it once, I have said it a thousand times.

I give you, and everyone else permission to belive what ever they want to belive!

Because if ONE chart and the NASA sight is not enough to convice you.. than surly nothing I can say will.

If visually shifting the in-game curves (i.e. visually shifting them by 30sec) is beyond peoples abilities, then they really shouldnt be involved in any part of this discussion in the first place. That and I also provide the ROCs which are time independed. So, not much more I can do, I can not make up here in a few posts what the school systems failed to do in 12 years! There is one person here that I care about what he thinks, and his name starts with an O. If he deams the NASA method to be invalid, all this work is still useful, in that I know *he* is capable of visually subtrack 30sec from any point alone the in-game curve if needed.

So, again, just to be crystal! If you guys want to belive there are little green men and unmarked black helo's landing in your back yard.. Be my guest! No skin off my back! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shifting the curves is fine as long as people actually DO IT.

Failed school system? I graduated in 75 with a 4.1 *** due to taking college level math,
aka calculus. It gave extra credit. I would have scored higher for other course but being
poor and not qualified for for affirmative action, my parents had me go to vo-tech during
high school and that cut my time for advanced science. Had to go to summer school just to
get physics and better history. The system was there when I was, just most other kids did
not take advantage of it, about 2 out of 3 it seemed.

I can't speak for what has been consistently done to public schools since 1980 except that
it has been a crime the priority placed on the future. But all the private schooled kids
DO get their extra advantage and it's easier to sway the votes when the average can't
understand what's happening beyond sound bytes and loyalties.

I'm sure that when Oleg sees the 'math work' done on the 'tests', he just stops on the
first plain error he sees and quits reading on the subject. That is where I have problems
with this process of loosely made and supported claims because we all lose time at the
least and entire issues due to nothing but 'noise'. 190 forward view and the trim are
the two biggest examples of what a loud crowd can get. 50 cal grouped fire and the P-51
elevators are others. I ask for tight work because that is what is needed.

WWMaxGunz
09-02-2005, 10:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Because if ONE chart and the NASA sight is not enough to convice you.. than surly nothing I can say will. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The NASA site says 'USUALLY' on the time zero = start of takeoff.
And it is about modern testing.

That's nice. I'll believe the chart/graph maker stuck to that when the data reflects that.
Otherwise, shift the curve by all means. I'm sure the gap lessens and the issue is far less
critical regarding the P-47 climbs.

TAGERT.
09-02-2005, 11:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Shifting the curves is fine as long as people actually DO IT. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>But only as long as it is needed to be done. Depends on who you want to belive. If you don't belive he NASA sight or what is plainly printed on the ONE chart, then shift away! Just don't fool yourself into think what you think is correct makes it correct.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Failed school system? I graduated in 75 with a 4.1 *** due to taking college level math, aka calculus. It gave extra credit. I would have scored higher for other course but being poor and not qualified for for affirmative action, my parents had me go to vo-tech during
high school and that cut my time for advanced science. Had to go to summer school just to get physics and better history. The system was there when I was, just most other kids did not take advantage of it, about 2 out of 3 it seemed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That statement was not directed at you personally, it was intended for the gen public. But, I have to question your experience in curve fitting, in that you seem to be amazed by the fact that some data points cross through zero while others don't. It is just an artifact of the polynomial fit! Or are you operating under the impression that those curves on those graphs are the raw data points and not curve fitted?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I can't speak for what has been consistently done to public schools since 1980 except that it has been a crime the priority placed on the future. But all the private schooled kids DO get their extra advantage and it's easier to sway the votes when the average can't
understand what's happening beyond sound bytes and loyalties. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well I graduated out of high school in the late 70s, spent the early part of the 80s in the ARMY serving my country and saving up for college, so I can relate to the poor thang. As for high schools today, they sound good on paper, but, they are a liberal hell hole imho.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I'm sure that when Oleg sees the 'math work' done on the 'tests', he just stops on the first plain error he sees and quits reading on the subject. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm sure that one day I will win the LOTTO.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
That is where I have problems with this process of loosely made and supported claims because we all lose time at the least and entire issues due to nothing but 'noise'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>If you want to belive that basing the method on a NASA sight is classified as "loosely made supported claims" be my guest, I really don't care! But imho that is silly, and like I said, the testing done so far is not hurt by that either way, in that it is a SNAP for someone of Oleg's caliber to visually adj the curve by 30sec, if he *feels* the NASA method was not employed. That and the ROC curves are depended on alt, not time. The only thing you have to visually do there is kick out the leg (where the ROC cuts back in at low alt) of the curve a little at low alt to account for the starting from a stop.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
190 forward view and the trim are the two biggest examples of what a loud crowd can get. 50 cal grouped fire and the P-51
elevators are others. I ask for tight work because that is what is needed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, one thing for sure, there will never be enough info to make the likes of Hoarmouth happy. Even when you give him exactly what he asks for he gets upset (i.e. planes not taking off at zero time). So I don't worry about people that have to have a crystal ball and a time machine to be convinced. There is more data in this and the P38 climb test threads than 90% of the threads in this forum imho. If that aint enough, oh well, I did my best. It is easy to pick apart other peoples work, and demand perfection. But I knew that going in, I knew there would be the nay sawyers that would nit pick these things apart. But, I have never really cared much about what they say or think. Only one guy maters here, and it aint you and it aint me! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT.
09-02-2005, 11:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
The NASA site says <span class="ev_code_yellow">'USUALLY'</span> on the time zero = start of takeoff. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That is taken out of context imho. Here is what the NASA sight actully says with regards to time starts once the plane starts rolling.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Dryden Flight Research Center - Description of a Check Climb :
In order to accurately establish the weight at the start of the maneuver, a special fueling and weight measurement may precede the engine start, and the airplane might be positioned closer to the runway to avoid a long taxi time. The test begins on the runway by establishing Military Power with the brakes on. Time starts when the brakes are released. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

or this?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Dryden Flight Research Center - Required Instrumentation :
The parameters <span class="ev_code_yellow">usually</span> measured and recorded during a check climb are shown in Table (1-1).. The engine instruments shown are representative but not complete. The engine instrumentation will be used to correct the thrust and fuel flow data to standard day pressures and temperatures. A continuous time history of these parameters is needed throughout the actual maneuver which <span class="ev_code_yellow">usually</span> begins at brake release. A sampling rate of at least 10 data samples every second is necessary to accurately record the maneuver, and each data sample must be accurately time correlated with the data samples of the other parameters. That is, we must be able to relate a particular measurement of fuel flow and time-from-brake-release with a measurement of Mach number and altitude </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

or this?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Dryden Flight Research Center - Specific Objective of the Test :
<span class="ev_code_red">The primary purpose of the check climb is to validate the predicted time-to-climb</span> and fuel-used data obtained from other test sources. A secondary objective is to assess the practicality of the "best-climb schedule", that is, can the adjustment in speed as altitude increases be accomplished by a proficient pilot. Part of this secondary objective is to establish the best piloting technique for transitioning from the takeoff and initial level acceleration to the desired climb on the climb schedule. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

or this?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Dryden Flight Research Center
The check climb is a test maneuver which "checks" these predicted climb characteristics by attempting to fly the best-climb schedule and recording the actual time and fuel used. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

or this?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Dryden Flight Research Center - Starting Trim Point :
The starting point for a check climb is <span class="ev_code_yellow">usually</span> brake release at the start of the takeoff roll. Although the airplane is not really checking the best-climb schedule until after the pilot has completed the takeoff, acceleration and transition, the check climb maneuver <span class="ev_code_yellow">usually</span> includes the total time and fuel used from brake release. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and last but not least, the REASONING behind it all.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Dryden Flight Research Center - Check Climb :
Flying the best-climb schedule will allow the airplane to reach any desired altitude in the minimum amount of time. This is a very important parameter for an interceptor attempting to engage an incoming enemy aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Intercepting the enemy is something civilian/commercial aircraft are not interested in, thus they <span class="ev_code_yellow">usually</span> wouldn't bother with the starting from the runway at break release method.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
And it is about modern testing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Disagree 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
That's nice. I'll believe the chart/graph maker stuck to that when the data reflects that. Otherwise, shift the curve by all means. I'm sure the gap lessens and the issue is far less critical regarding the P-47 climbs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>If that is what you want to *belive*, be my guest! Just know that you have not presented anything here to convince me otherwise.

faustnik
09-02-2005, 01:08 PM
Tagert,

Are you sure the weights in the weights in DCG763's tests were correct? Buzzsaw's test still looked a lot different and he is a stickler for accuracy.

Thanks again for the graphs. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

TAGERT.
09-02-2005, 02:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Tagert,

Are you sure the weights in the weights in DCG763's tests were correct? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, I guess it depends on your def of what the correct wegiths are. All I know if that in one DCG763 didnt take 100% and in one he did, but in both he fired all his ammo at the end of the run showing he had a full ammo load.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Buzzsaw's test still looked a lot different </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I have not spent too much time comparing the two.. I have been working on fine tuning the analysis tool so that others can look at the data and do that.. But, looking at the summary table on page one. The thing that jumps out at me that effects the two the most is the IAS speed. Buzzsaw was not climbing as hard as DCG763.. Thus Buzzsaw got worse numbers.. Buzzsaw had and IAS of about 170 - 160mph and DGC763 was about 150 - 145mph. I dont know which of the two is the recomended climb speed.. I think I saw a post by Buzzsaw saying ~150mph, yet he did is around ~165.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
and he is a stickler for accuracy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Seems to be, but, DCG763 is also very compliant! Everything that was asked of him he did! Except for one of the last ones he did, he still dindnt use 100% fuel. Unless the D-10 had a different fuel load than the D-22?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Thanks again for the graphs. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No problem! It is getting easier with each rev on the tool..

So, not sure if anyone is interested, but I would be willing to process anyones track file for any plane! Just as long as they keep them small and dont do strange stunts!

For example in DGC763's last flight.. After he reached 20k+ he started to fire his guns.. but at the same time started to do a rolling dive.. That stunt really messed up the curve! I could add more code to process that out, but, it would be easier if you guys just dont pull strange stunts! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WWMaxGunz
09-02-2005, 02:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
The NASA site says <span class="ev_code_yellow">'USUALLY'</span> on the time zero = start of takeoff. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That is taken out of context imho. Here is what the NASA sight actully says with regards to time starts once the plane starts rolling.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Dryden Flight Research Center - Description of a Check Climb :
In order to accurately establish the weight at the start of the maneuver, a special fueling and weight measurement may precede the engine start, and the airplane might be positioned closer to the runway to avoid a long taxi time. The test begins on the runway by establishing Military Power with the brakes on. Time starts when the brakes are released. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good. Now try quoting the paragraph before that, which is the one I pointed out and
quoted directly earlier in this thread. Usually as in not all tests started the time
at the start of the takeoff roll... not all data is the same.

I've seen the curves that start from zero and what I should see in the averaging is a
lower part of the curve at a lesser slope since 30 seconds of no climb will do that.

As I pointed out, the only way to get the curves I've seen start from rollout and have
the instant best climb slope from second zero is if the data is very scant... as in the
first points would have to be far enough in time to swamp those 30 seconds. In that
case the curves are pretty much useless trying to compare to the sim. And I don't see
the lower part of any of those curves starting out with a lesser slope that begins to
account for 30 seconds spent not climbing. Or even 15 seconds.

That is IF they even are averaged which is not an established fact in many cases shown.
I've SEEN the curves on the NACA chart and hey, the ones I'd use ALL show the starting
up before actual climb right there without being washed out in a bogus curve fit. It is
a shame that the P-51B data wasn't treated the same which leaves me believing that that
data was sparse at best and not following the standards that the others were. $#!+
happens and that curve is evidence. I fully expect it to be used to 'prove' the P-51's
need to be cranked up for faster climbs.
Why would someone who plotted and fit all the others not know better than to base the
start of climb of the P-51B at second zero any way? Really, I will bet that that curve
was added on by someone else later as a revision for whatever reason. Things like that
did and still do happen.

At least YOU are willing to see shifted curves used by which I think that means player
test climbs started at beginning of climb (for time zero) when the chart begins at time
zero. But maybe you don't.

p1ngu666
09-02-2005, 06:12 PM
u could always take the roc from say 3000ft and work out low alt climb, basicaly complete the curve, as a turbo aircraft i bet u could get *really* close doing that

TAGERT.
09-02-2005, 06:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Good. Now try quoting the paragraph before that, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No need to try, in that I did post/quote them all before and after that in my last reply to you. I even went as far as to highlight the word USALLY in yellow for you.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
which is the one I pointed out and quoted directly earlier in this thread. Usually as in not all tests started the time at the start of the take off roll... not all data is the same. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%! Not all data is the same! In that I'm feel confidant, as you clearly do to, that they USUALLY didn't bother starting the timer at break release for cargo planes, bombers, transports, etc. But I'm sure they USUALLY did start the timer at break release for INTERCEPTOR/PURSUIT types of aircraft.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I've seen the curves that start from zero and what I should see in the averaging is a lower part of the curve at a lesser slope since 30 seconds of no climb will do that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Depends, on the number of data points and the order of the polynomial fit.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
As I pointed out, the only way to get the curves I've seen start from rollouts and have the instant best climb slope from second zero is if the data is very scant... as in the first points would have to be far enough in time to swamp those 30 seconds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed, I pointed that out a long time ago and in several threads.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
In that case the curves are pretty much useless trying to compare to the sim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
And I don't see the lower part of any of those curves starting out with a lesser slope that begins to account for 30 seconds spent not climbing. Or even 15 seconds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Because the order of the polynomial fit is low, 2nd order. It you use higher order fits it would/could catch such points. But, that is more detail than is required, because just the difference in the way the pilot flys it has more error than that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
That is IF they even are averaged which is not an established fact in many cases shown. I've SEEN the curves on the NACA chart and hey, the ones I'd use ALL show the starting up before actual climb right there without being washed out in a bogus curve fit. It is a shame that the P-51B data wasn't treated the same which leaves me believing that that data was sparse at best and not following the standards that the others were. $#!+ happens and that curve is evidence. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree, it is just an artifact of the polynomial fit. Typically a plane that gets off the grounds sooner will have a poly fit that passes through zero, and one that takes a little while will have a poly fit that does not pass through zero. I see it all the time at work with data, and I have seen it in the P38 poly fits I have done. The data points do NOT pass through zero, yet the poly does. Why? Because the P38 got off the ground quick.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I fully expect it to be used to 'prove' the P-51's need to be cranked up for faster climbs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I fully expect to win the LOTTO this weekend.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Why would someone who plotted and fit all the others not know better than to base the start of climb of the P-51B at second zero any way? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>They did know better, it is just that in this case the P51 data points caused the poly fit to pass thorough zero. You should really take a look at my 2nd to the last pdf file I did for DCG673.

DGC673_P-47D-10_NOM_2.pdf (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_RESULTS/ROC/P47/dgc763/DGC763_P-47D-10_NOM_2.pdf)

On pages 20-23 it shows a poly fit that DOES NOT pass though zero. Than take a look at some of my poly fits for the P38 (other thread) and note that even though the data points lag just like the P47 the poly DOES pass through zero. Why? Because the data points (i.e. aircraft) got off the ground sooner and started climbing better (large init ROC). That is what happens when you apply a low order poly fit to in-game data points, and the same thing would happen to real world data ponits 60 years ago! That math has not changed in years! Back then though they didn't have the computing power we have today. So, they would sometimes just visually connect the dots (data points) and hand draw a smooth curve. They wouldn't have waisted the time finding the polynomial coefficients unless they wanted to apply some math to it (derivative for ROC, etc). In short, when the poly fit passes through zero, it means the plane got off the ground pretty fast.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Really, I will bet that that curve was added on by someone else later as a revision for whatever reason. Things like that did and still do happen. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That is your right to belive that, just know that I don't agree with it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
At least YOU are willing to see shifted curves used by which I think that means player test climbs started at beginning of climb (for time zero) when the chart begins at time zero. But maybe you don't. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm one of the few that does keep an open mind on things around here. I don't know if I'm right or wrong. All I do know is that the NASA sight makes perfect since when you consider it from a military point of view.

Oh, and it is not a modern method. It is as old as the hills.

WWMaxGunz
09-03-2005, 03:35 AM
Well it really only matters what Oleg thinks anyway.

TAGERT.
09-03-2005, 10:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Well it really only matters what Oleg thinks anyway. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Is what I have been saying!

But here is why I think your wrong and I'm right. Which is not to be confused with me saying I'm right and your wrong.

ASSUMPTION: What your looking at in those charts is NOT the real (original) data points, those are the polynomial curve fits of the data points.

Now take a look at some of my in-game polynomial fit of the *real* in-game data points and you will see that the *real* in-game data points do NOT show the plane jumping off the ground at t=0! Yet the polynomial of those same data points does pass through zero!

That is what I mean when I say it is an artifact of the polynomial fit!

That math works the same for real or in-game data points!

NOTE:
My explanation accounts for why the P51 curve passing through zero.

For you explanation to work it requires us to...
1) Ignore what is CLEARLY stated on the chart "TIME MEASURED FROM START OF TAKEOFF RUN"
2) Belive they got all the curves right except for one.
3) Belive that real world data points were that smooth.
4) Belive that a STANDARD TEST METHOD (NASA) was only applied sometimes for interceptors.

So, not saying Im right, but, based on my experance I *think* I am!

If you want/need I can post a few examples pictures showing a slew of polynomial fits. Startig with a linear fit (straight line) all the way up to a 4th order fit. Do you think that would be of some help to you? They say a picture is worth a 1000 words!