PDA

View Full Version : Results of JaBo_HH_Gotcha dive tests



TAGERT.
09-01-2004, 12:30 AM
NACA standard style testing.. That is the goal here!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/divetests/JaBo_HH/JaBo_HH_Gotcha_Dive_Tests_vel.jpg EXAMPLE

The following is how I tested JaBo_HH_Gotcha's track files.

http://www.black-crusade.de/hellhounds/divetests.zip

I don't know what his conclusions were.. I only know he said he sent these to Oleg.. So I assumed that he felt they contained proof of a bug? After looking at the data the only thing I could conclude is the test methods were flawed and thus not much use to say anything really. Anyway, the following is what I did, please take a look at it and see if you feel I made any errors. My goal is to come up with some standard test methods for our simulated NACA test pilots to follow.

How to sync dive test data

The indication that the dive test has begun is the in the LARGE elevator deflection. This enables you to sync up the data during post processing. What that means is it doesn't mater when you start recording the track file (.ntrk) take as much time as you need to get the initial velocity and initial altitude to the same values for all aircraft you plan to test. If you fail to do so it will make it very hard to draw any conclusions from the data, let alone compare one plane to another.

Once you have the alt and speed match up you can begin the dive. Many pilot like to just eye-ball the dive angle (i.e. nose pitch) but I recommend the use of DeviceLink data to display the pitch angle on the screen, along with the alt and speed. Those three values will enable you to preform a good dive test.

I also recommend testing one variable at a time. That is to say if your going to adj the prop pitch during the dive, then adj the prop pitch for all the aircraft you test. Problem is trying to adj them all the same amount at the same time. So I would recommend that during a dive test you just concentrate on the dive itself and leave everything else untouched. If you want to investigate the effect of prop pitch then do a test with the same aircraft with different prop pitch settings.

About the only thing I can think of that should be noted, because it is not avaliable via DeviceLink, is the ammo load. Planes like the P47 and P39 can take extra ammo, so if you do, then make a note of it.

With that said lets take a look at JaBo_HH_Gotcha dive tests.

The first mistake he made is he did not ensure that the initial altitude and initial velocity were the same. That is why the velocity plots show the Fw190 starting out faster than the P47 and YaK3. This is also why the Fw190 hit the terminal velocity mark (700km/h) sooner.. He used that mark to begin pulling out of the dive. Sense the Fw190 started at a FASTER velocity and LOWER alt it in turn reached the mark sooner then the rest. Thus he also started pulling out of the dive sooner than the rest.

This is why it is so critical to get the initial velocity and initial altitude as close as possible. Because if you don't, it skews the rest of the results!

Another mistake was he pitched the Fw190 nose into a steeper dive than the rest, nearly -60? compared to the -50? of the others.
Another mistake was he used elevator trim on the P47 and Fw190 but not the YaK3. If your going to do it, do it to all or not at all IMHO.
Another mistake was he used prop pitch on the P47 and YaK3 but not the Fw190 witch greatly effected the RPM of the P47, again if your going to do it do it to all or not at all.

Another mistake was he dove much lower in the P47 than the other two aircraft, thus the zoom climb did not regain as much alt as it did in the other aircraft. This may be due to the fact that he could NOT dive the Fw190 and YaK3 any further in that from the SHAKE graph we can see those plans stated to come apart! But would you conclude that the zoom climb of the P47 is worse than the Fw190 and YaK3? Or would you conclude that the P47 handles speed better and thus was able to dive longer faster and thus lower to the ground. I would think the later, had he pulled out at a higher alt, i.e. the alt the other aircraft started to fall apart due to height speeds he would have found that the zoom climb was comparable if not better IMHO.

Here is a link to my plots where I adj the data to sync up the elevator deflection

SYNCED (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/divetests/JaBo_HH/JaBo_HH_Gotcha_Dive_Tests_ALT_SYNC.pdf)

And here is a link to the original un-synched plots.

UN-SYNCED (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/divetests/JaBo_HH/JaBo_HH_Gotcha_Dive_Tests_ORGINAL.pdf)

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

[This message was edited by TAGERT. on Wed September 08 2004 at 10:48 PM.]

TAGERT.
09-01-2004, 12:30 AM
NACA standard style testing.. That is the goal here!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/divetests/JaBo_HH/JaBo_HH_Gotcha_Dive_Tests_vel.jpg EXAMPLE

The following is how I tested JaBo_HH_Gotcha's track files.

http://www.black-crusade.de/hellhounds/divetests.zip

I don't know what his conclusions were.. I only know he said he sent these to Oleg.. So I assumed that he felt they contained proof of a bug? After looking at the data the only thing I could conclude is the test methods were flawed and thus not much use to say anything really. Anyway, the following is what I did, please take a look at it and see if you feel I made any errors. My goal is to come up with some standard test methods for our simulated NACA test pilots to follow.

How to sync dive test data

The indication that the dive test has begun is the in the LARGE elevator deflection. This enables you to sync up the data during post processing. What that means is it doesn't mater when you start recording the track file (.ntrk) take as much time as you need to get the initial velocity and initial altitude to the same values for all aircraft you plan to test. If you fail to do so it will make it very hard to draw any conclusions from the data, let alone compare one plane to another.

Once you have the alt and speed match up you can begin the dive. Many pilot like to just eye-ball the dive angle (i.e. nose pitch) but I recommend the use of DeviceLink data to display the pitch angle on the screen, along with the alt and speed. Those three values will enable you to preform a good dive test.

I also recommend testing one variable at a time. That is to say if your going to adj the prop pitch during the dive, then adj the prop pitch for all the aircraft you test. Problem is trying to adj them all the same amount at the same time. So I would recommend that during a dive test you just concentrate on the dive itself and leave everything else untouched. If you want to investigate the effect of prop pitch then do a test with the same aircraft with different prop pitch settings.

About the only thing I can think of that should be noted, because it is not avaliable via DeviceLink, is the ammo load. Planes like the P47 and P39 can take extra ammo, so if you do, then make a note of it.

With that said lets take a look at JaBo_HH_Gotcha dive tests.

The first mistake he made is he did not ensure that the initial altitude and initial velocity were the same. That is why the velocity plots show the Fw190 starting out faster than the P47 and YaK3. This is also why the Fw190 hit the terminal velocity mark (700km/h) sooner.. He used that mark to begin pulling out of the dive. Sense the Fw190 started at a FASTER velocity and LOWER alt it in turn reached the mark sooner then the rest. Thus he also started pulling out of the dive sooner than the rest.

This is why it is so critical to get the initial velocity and initial altitude as close as possible. Because if you don't, it skews the rest of the results!

Another mistake was he pitched the Fw190 nose into a steeper dive than the rest, nearly -60? compared to the -50? of the others.
Another mistake was he used elevator trim on the P47 and Fw190 but not the YaK3. If your going to do it, do it to all or not at all IMHO.
Another mistake was he used prop pitch on the P47 and YaK3 but not the Fw190 witch greatly effected the RPM of the P47, again if your going to do it do it to all or not at all.

Another mistake was he dove much lower in the P47 than the other two aircraft, thus the zoom climb did not regain as much alt as it did in the other aircraft. This may be due to the fact that he could NOT dive the Fw190 and YaK3 any further in that from the SHAKE graph we can see those plans stated to come apart! But would you conclude that the zoom climb of the P47 is worse than the Fw190 and YaK3? Or would you conclude that the P47 handles speed better and thus was able to dive longer faster and thus lower to the ground. I would think the later, had he pulled out at a higher alt, i.e. the alt the other aircraft started to fall apart due to height speeds he would have found that the zoom climb was comparable if not better IMHO.

Here is a link to my plots where I adj the data to sync up the elevator deflection

SYNCED (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/divetests/JaBo_HH/JaBo_HH_Gotcha_Dive_Tests_ALT_SYNC.pdf)

And here is a link to the original un-synched plots.

UN-SYNCED (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/divetests/JaBo_HH/JaBo_HH_Gotcha_Dive_Tests_ORGINAL.pdf)

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

[This message was edited by TAGERT. on Wed September 08 2004 at 10:48 PM.]

LEXX_Luthor
09-01-2004, 12:57 AM
You may wish to edit the post to make the pic a link so others may read your text.

Or re~size the pic to 1/2 the current size.



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

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

CHDT
09-01-2004, 03:21 AM
Just an idea.

It could be great to program a kind of virtual air rail to make these testings, like a kind of path, but not more in the horizontal like on the map, but in the vertical: this way, all the aircrafts would follow exactly the same paths for these testings.

moksha
09-01-2004, 04:08 AM
CHDT that's a great idea.
It might also be an idea to use almost the opposite approach-don't worry about the course just get the plane types to dive at their max-max in terms of "efficient" dive or max velocity / acceleration.
Then again if enough tests were done under varying "rail" conditions you'd have a bloody
good idea of optimum for each type anyhow..

JaBo_HH--Gotcha
09-01-2004, 04:14 AM
Hi ya !

First off thanks for the input. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I mean it.

My conclusion was "Dive accelariation are virtually the same regardless of planetype"
(let's be man enough http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )
I rather caught what some squadmates of my wing said and wanted to see for myself. I just did tests for the two planes I repsect most (FW190 and P47) and my arch-uber-plane (i am biased so sorry for that) and picked the yak-3 as the menace.

However:
I may comment some bits.
As you said I didn't have any device-link-stuff etc to check my total angle so only using visual.

I am usually a FW190 pilot so I picked these two just for a short comparison.

Most things I did during this short dive was by reacting to the stick input (force feedback).

So when I am diving and I "feel" pressure I start to trim. The reason why I didn't trim the yak3 is simple. I din't feel anything which would cause me to trim it.

I only used prop-pitch to keep going fast.
I also stopped the dives when I approached the limit or what I thought it to be.

The only thing o interest for ME was "How fast can I reach 700km/h in diving ?"

Everything else put aside, I found that in that scenario if yak3 would be behind ME and flying the way I did I would not leave it standing, be it a p47 or a FW190. (we know all combar reports where this was not the case, but let's put this aside)
That's why I started to count the time when I dived and stopped counting when I reached 700km/h
(following the idea that you measure accelaration from specific speed to target speed. e.g. Cars 0-100km/h and so on)
So I didn't really care for the terminal velocity, which I knew was modelled more or less)
I started all planes from virtually the same altitudes (5000 m) and dove.
I measured the times and saw:
FW190 350-700: 15 seconds
P47: 320/330-700:15-16 seconds (close by)
YAK3: 300-700: 15 seconds

So although the yak started slowest it reached 700km/h nearly as fast as the others.
This was the main Idea of the test.

Just of interest I pulled the YAK out of the dive and zoomed up (i think 30-40 degrees until lift was away. No stall though..) and I reached 4750 m ! So after a dive I lost 250m of energy.
What is true, is that I forgot to check when I started to zoom up but error made and I admit it, but nevertheless nice stat for a plane loosing just 250m from a dive. Good e-Retention...
But this was not what I wanted to test.(anyway thanks ! I respect somebody wasting his free time.)
My concern is strictly the accelaration. I state that the diveaccelaration is virtually the same or at least DOESN'T CARE for Mass/Drag-factors thus I compared it to a yak3.(on behalf of combat reports from FW pilots, Gabreskis comments on the p47 etc.)

I don't have absolute numbers on these (that's why I wrote to oleg, that I leave that for the experts to decide) but my conclusion is that

- you can't dive away from a yak3 and expect to gain speed faster than him even in a plane like the p47.
- in fact you cannot dive away from ANY plane and hope for seperation to build up before you reach the terminal velocity of your pursuer.

Terminal velocity is something else but since you need 15 seconds to make the yak stop diving after you, you may be full of holes in this time..

I read the graphs so you may have to explain something to me. (no rocket-engineer myself..)

if we look on the graph (the second) I think one can see that the graph run in parallel until they reach 700km/h the difference resulting in the different starting speed.
Pitch graphs look fairly the same and I guess with devicelink and some more experience in yak3 (sorry but I HATE that plane..)I would make them blend http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I don't get the idea of the proppitch -graph since I used AUTO for dives...

Same goes for angler velocity (sorry english is not my first language.. )

Your altitude vs velocity graph is cool !
FW190 and yak being quite similar at 700km/h and all the way down eh ?

Thanks for the time ! I'd like to conduct more tests with more planes just of curiosity.
When I get you right you say the tests are "flawed" or not perfect (if I put it somewhat frinedlier..) I'd like to see whether somebody could show me or others that my statement "you cannot get seperation from another pane during the acceleration although you historically dived better" is not true.

Again ! Thanks for the time. Can you send me the tool ?
C'mon guys ! everybody is invited http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/gotcha.jpg

[This message was edited by JaBo_HH--Gotcha on Wed September 01 2004 at 03:35 AM.]

WWMaxGunz
09-01-2004, 04:46 AM
Tagert -- pitch is not dive angle.

Try this with devicelink. Fly level for a distance at low speed, near stall, and
see if your pitch is also level.

You want flight path, do some work with time, speed and alt, then check against pitch.
For any climb, dive or level flight with any one plane and weight (plus flaps, gear
and other such variables you will see on those NACA charts -- the conditions) there
will be ONE speed at which pitch matches path. If it wasn't true then trimming to
fly level hands off the column wouldn't work. If that's not so then someone educate
me here! Fly level trimmed level and then increase power and you have to do what to
stay in level flight and the higher speed? Trim =nose down=. Pitch is where the
nose points. Pitch is not necessarily flight path unless it is mislabelled in
devicelink! So find another way to determine the angle the plane is diving!


Neal

k5054
09-01-2004, 06:52 AM
Neal, you're right about pitch/path, but the difference will be only a couple of degrees, and a similar amount for each a/c, so the difference in dive acceleration at any reasonably steep angle is not much.

Gotcha, your test parameters are too restrictive to find the differences. Because you end the test at 700kph, you don't really get far into the 'weight affects dive speed' area, you spend most of the time in the area where power/weight makes most difference, then in the area where best top speed has most effect. Your a/c only spend a second or two in the next area where the P-47 ought to show an advantage. Also you took three a/c of similar performance, started too slow and too low, and dived too steep. A steep dive to get away at medium alt gets you to the deck fast, with the pursuer above you able to watch you pull out very soon and stay on top. As you've seen no worthwhile separation is achieved.

The zoom of the Yak may not be as good as you think, to lose 250m is not good e retention if your engine has been running all the time.. If you had not dived, you'd expect to have gained 500+m in that time.

I'd like to repeat again that we here still don't seem to have a clear idea of how good dive/zoom characterisitics were used in real life. I'd really like to know what dive angles were used and how hard/gentle the pullout was, and what zoom angle was best.

JaBo_HH--Gotcha
09-01-2004, 08:31 AM
@k5054: in what way restrictive ?
We'Re talking of accelaration here, not of the top speed.
I want to see that a p47 could LEAVE a yak3 when diving. Same goes for a FW190 vs. a YAK3 which a lot of historical accounts have proven. Some guy even has it in his Signature...(albeit a d9 here).

Since most planes TV is between 700km/h - 850km/h I think it's a good point to check WHETHER I accelarate "faster" or not.
(meaning: I will reach 700km/h in 15 seconds whereas the big fat B17 will need 30 seconds..)
TV is not the factor here. The zoom difference is a topic on it's own and I leave that to others.
Just pure dragster-race testing if you like it that way. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

!S!

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/gotcha.jpg

TAGERT.
09-01-2004, 08:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CHDT:
Just an idea.

It could be great to program a kind of virtual air rail to make these testings, like a kind of path, but not more in the horizontal like on the map, but in the vertical: this way, all the aircrafts would follow exactly the same paths for these testings.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Via the DeviceLink "set" commands that is would be posiable to do such things

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

TAGERT.
09-01-2004, 08:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Tagert -- pitch is not dive angle.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But as k5054 pointed out the delta is very small. And for dive testing the UDPSpeed display of it is better than eye-balling it IMHO

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

clint-ruin
09-01-2004, 09:07 AM
Tagert, you rock. Great work.

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

NonWonderDog
09-01-2004, 09:14 AM
Hmm... it might be more useful to graph the derivative, but you can still see that the accelleration is nearly identical for all three planes once they're committed to the dive, even though they started at different speeds and dive angles.

It looks like accelleration is just capped at a certain global value. The P47 has a huge advantage for the first 15 frames, but then they all seem to hit the same maximum accelleration. That doesn't seem right...you'd expect 3 very similar but slightly different curves, not 3 parallel lines.

It looks like the Fw-190 might be accellerating very slightly better, but it was at a steeper dive angle, right?

TAGERT.
09-01-2004, 10:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Gotcha
Hi ya !

First off thanks for the input. I mean it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No Problem! It was actually kind of fun! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Gotcha
My conclusion was "Dive accelariation are virtually the same regardless of planetype"
(let's be man enough )<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And let's be man enough to admit our errors! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Gotcha
I rather caught what some squadmates of my wing said and wanted to see for myself. I just did tests for the two planes I repsect most (FW190 and P47) and my arch-uber-plane (i am biased so sorry for that) and picked the yak-3 as the menace.

However:
I may comment some bits.
As you said I didn't have any device-link-stuff etc to check my total angle so only using visual.

I am usually a FW190 pilot so I picked these two just for a short comparison.

Most things I did during this short dive was by reacting to the stick input (force feedback).

So when I am diving and I "feel" pressure I start to trim. The reason why I didn't trim the yak3 is simple. I din't feel anything which would cause me to trim it.

I only used prop-pitch to keep going fast.
I also stopped the dives when I approached the limit or what I thought it to be.

The only thing o interest for ME was "How fast can I reach 700km/h in diving ?"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, ok thanks for the feedback. I though you were pulling out of the dive once you hit 700km/h.. That explains why you dove the P47 so much lower.. Because it could dive faster without coming apart.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Gotcha
Everything else put aside, I found that in that scenario if yak3 would be behind ME and flying the way I did I would not leave it standing, be it a p47 or a FW190. (we know all combar reports where this was not the case, but let's put this aside)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well do we all know the combat reports? I seem to recal Kit Carson saying something about the 190 being very good.. And the few combat reports I recall P47 pilots talking about dive separation is with regards to a Bf109. With that said these dive tests are a little misleading.. In that the speed delta is small.. Thus people may think that means the P47 in the sim does not exhibit that "great dive" charterstics. Keep in mind it is the little speed delta over a small period of time that will put distance between you and the other guy!! For example.. if your driving a car at 60mph and another car passes you at 70mph it does not *look* like much as he passes you.. That and on paper a speed delta of only 10mph (70mog-60mph) does not look like much... BUT in just 15 seconds that car will be more that 200ft in front of you (1 mile/hour (mph) = 1.4666667 foot/second). So to get a feel for the SEPARATION we need to look at the area under the velocity charts and subtrack the difference which will be equal to the distance (separation) between the two.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Gotcha
That's why I started to count the time when I dived and stopped counting when I reached 700km/h
(following the idea that you measure accelaration from specific speed to target speed. e.g. Cars 0-100km/h and so on)
So I didn't really care for the terminal velocity, which I knew was modelled more or less)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Problem is a little speed delta can make a big difference in the results.. And sense you didn't get the initial velocity close.. well it makes the data you collected kind of hard to use in an argument.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Gotcha
I started all planes from virtually the same altitudes (5000 m) and dove.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
virtually? At the start of the dive.. i.e. the point where elevator was applied. The alt was as follows
P47 5048.68m
190 4868.22m
YaK3 4987.48m

That is nearly a 200m difference for the P47 to the other planes.. The P47 had farther to go, thus took longer to get there.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Gotcha
I measured the times and saw:
FW190 350-700: 15 seconds
P47: 320/330-700:15-16 seconds (close by)
YAK3: 300-700: 15 seconds<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
At the start of the dive.. i.e. the point where elevator was applied. The velocity was as follows
P47 259.56km/h
190 317.44km/h
YaK3 232.74km/h

That is nearly a 50km/h speed adv the 190 had over the other planes.. The P47 and YaK3 were going slower, thus took longer to get up to speed.

As for time to 700km/h. I'm not sure about the tod units yet, so take these numbers with a grain of salt for now.. Also remember that the initial velocity and initial altitudes are off. But here is the "tod" time it took to get to around 700km/h
P47 432.04
190 385.3
YaK3 486.39

Note the 190 was the quickets to get to 700km/h.. But it was also moving faster and started lower.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Gotcha
So although the yak started slowest it reached 700km/h nearly as fast as the others.
This was the main Idea of the test.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Just to be clear.. I'm not saying your *idea* is wrong! Only that due to your test methods it is hard to tell from the data. Had you got the initial velocity and initial altitudes closer it would make it easier to see if what your saying is going on.. That and don't use trim or prop pitch or anything else.. If you want to test the effects of that do it on the same plane type. When comparing different aircraft better to leave out other variable changes IMHO.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Gotcha
Just of interest I pulled the YAK out of the dive and zoomed up (i think 30-40 degrees until lift was away. No stall though..) and I reached 4750 m ! So after a dive I lost 250m of energy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Enh!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Gotcha
What is true, is that I forgot to check when I started to zoom up but error made and I admit it, but nevertheless nice stat for a plane loosing just 250m from a dive. Good e-Retention...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Enh! Or was the P47 poor because of the prop pitch adj? See what I mean by leaving everything else alone?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Gotcha
But this was not what I wanted to test.(anyway thanks ! I respect somebody wasting his free time.)
My concern is strictly the accelaration. I state that the diveaccelaration is virtually the same or at least DOESN'T CARE for Mass/Drag-factors thus I compared it to a yak3.(on behalf of combat reports from FW pilots, Gabreskis comments on the p47 etc.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe.. maybe not! If we re-do the tests and ensure the same start alt and same start speed I can then take those velocity curves, get the best fit equations, and then take the derivative and get acceleration. Then we can tell if what your saying is true.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Gotcha
I don't have absolute numbers on these (that's why I wrote to oleg, that I leave that for the experts to decide) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Don't need experts IMHO! If I can do it just about anyone could! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Gotcha
but my conclusion is that

- you can't dive away from a yak3 and expect to gain speed faster than him even in a plane like the p47.
- in fact you cannot dive away from ANY plane and hope for separation to build up before you reach the terminal velocity of your pursuer.

Terminal velocity is something else but since you need 15 seconds to make the yak stop diving after you, you may be full of holes in this time..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe.. but these tests you did don't prove or disprove it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Gotcha
I read the graphs so you may have to explain something to me. (no rocket-engineer myself..)

if we look on the graph (the second) I think one can see that the graph run in parallel until they reach 700km/h the difference resulting in the different starting speed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>until they reach 700km/h? The *slope* of those lines are parallel but note the slope is about constant all the way out to 842km/h for the P47, 780km/h for the 190, and about 674km/h for the YaK3. But the fact that the slopes are the same over a region does tend to support your argument.. BUT.. is the slope the same because you reduced the P47 prop pitch, thus not allowing it to accelerate as well as the 190? See.. it is questions like that.. That is why I think it is so important to not change anything else.. Just get the initial alt and velocity right, then as you push over into a dive thump the throttle to 100% and ride the pitch angle down!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Gotcha
Pitch graphs look fairly the same and I guess with devicelink and some more experience in yak3 (sorry but I HATE that plane..)I would make them blend <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually the pitch rates are about the same.. But the 190 goes to a max pitch of -60? and the other max at -50?.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Gotcha
I don't get the idea of the proppitch -graph since I used AUTO for dives...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But above you said "I only used prop-pitch to keep going fast." is it safe to assume you meant elevator trim when you said that? Either way I would recommend not using auto anything.. Except maybe for the planes that don't allow manual adj.

I only used prop-pitch to keep going fast.
Same goes for angler velocity (sorry english is not my first language.. )

Your altitude vs velocity graph is cool !
FW190 and yak being quite similar at 700km/h and all the way down eh ? [/quote]Yes... eh! Funny that they would be what with the different prop pitch, elevator trim, etc. changes to some and not others.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Gotcha
Thanks for the time ! I'd like to conduct more tests with more planes just of curiosity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Same here! And like I said.. don't worry about when you start the trak file.. just worry about getting the initial velocity and alt right.. then get UDPSpeed to display the pitch angle

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Gotcha
When I get you right you say the tests are "flawed" or not perfect (if I put it somewhat frinedlier..) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No.. when you get them "right" Ill say so.. but *these* were not right! Thus I said so! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Gotcha
I'd like to see whether somebody could show me or others that my statement "you cannot get separation from another pane during the acceleration although you historically dived better" is not true. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I hope I can do that this weekend.. But again.. Not saying your theory is wrong! You may well be right! All I'm saying is that due to your test methods it is hard to tell from these tracks.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Gotcha
Again ! Thanks for the time. Can you send me the tool ?
C'mon guys ! everybody is invited <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There are a few.. I'm still debating which one is best.. Do a search here for UDPSpeed and you should find it.. That and BBB_Hyperion has a nice until out that might be the way to go.. He has a standard data format which should make things easier to pass around.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

[This message was edited by TAGERT. on Wed September 01 2004 at 09:12 AM.]

TAGERT.
09-01-2004, 10:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
Hmm... it might be more useful to graph the derivative, but you can still see that the accelleration is nearly identical for all three planes once they're committed to the dive, even though they started at different speeds and dive angles.

It looks like accelleration is just capped at a certain global value. The P47 has a huge advantage for the first 15 frames, but then they all seem to hit the same maximum accelleration. That doesn't seem right...you'd expect 3 very similar but slightly different curves, not 3 parallel lines.

It looks like the Fw-190 might be accellerating very slightly better, but it was at a steeper dive angle, right?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I noticed that too.. the velocity slopes are the same over a region.. But.. keep in mind the *other* factors.. For some reason he adj the prop-pitch on the P47 and YaK3. This had a big effect on the RPM of the P47 and a little effect on the YaK3. I dont know if that would adfect the acceleration.. But I think it would. Another problem for the YaK3 is is the high alt.. he was kind of fumbling around with the second-stage booster and fule misture (ie black smoke out the tail pipes) for the starting run of the YaK. In short.. if we are going to do these tests.. Where we want to comp one plane to another.. CHANGE AS LITTLE AS POSIABLE!!! Otherwise quesitons like mine about prop-pitch will be an unknown. If you want to look at the efect of prop-pitch do a seperte test where you use the same plane and only change the prop-pitch.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

LEXX_Luthor
09-01-2004, 10:09 AM
I botched my first Yak dive tests with fuel mix.

Start at medium altitude and don't have to worry.

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

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

TAGERT.
09-01-2004, 10:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
@k5054: in what way restrictive ?
We'Re talking of accelaration here, not of the top speed.
I want to see that a p47 could LEAVE a yak3 when diving. Same goes for a FW190 vs. a YAK3 which a lot of historical accounts have proven. Some guy even has it in his Signature...(albeit a d9 here).

Since most planes TV is between 700km/h - 850km/h I think it's a good point to check WHETHER I accelarate "faster" or not.
(meaning: I will reach 700km/h in 15 seconds whereas the big fat B17 will need 30 seconds..)
TV is not the factor here. The zoom difference is a topic on it's own and I leave that to others.
Just pure dragster-race testing if you like it that way. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

!S!

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/gotcha.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That was my next bit of advice.. leave the zoom back up part out.. Just dive it tills she sheds wings! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif We can do a zoom climb test by simply startig at a given alt and speed and then pull up at a fixed pitch angle.. Alot like this test only in reverse.. But like this test getting the inital velocity and altitude is critical

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

TAGERT.
09-01-2004, 10:31 AM
A little update

In another thread WWMaxGunz asked what the "inc" accesses is.. It is just the incrementing number. That is to say looking at the values in a spread sheet.. it is the count of the values.. ie the ROW count. Now that all works fine as long as the delta time between each data sample is the same. As it was on my track files. But, I just noticed on Gotcha's track files they were not so constant.. close.. but not a constant. So, there will be a little left-right skew error for each graph. What I need to do is use excel to do a delta between each data sample and then plot all the graphes relitive to the delta. That will sync them up nice. I dont expect the graphs will look much different than they do now.. But dont know for sure until I do it. But wont be able to do it unitl later tonight. Just wanted to give you all a heads up.

[This message was edited by TAGERT. on Wed September 01 2004 at 09:56 AM.]

TAGERT.
09-01-2004, 10:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
Neal, you're right about pitch/path, but the difference will be only a couple of degrees, and a similar amount for each a/c, so the difference in dive acceleration at any reasonably steep angle is not much.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Roger That!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
Gotcha, your test parameters are too restrictive to find the differences. Because you end the test at 700kph, you don't really get far into the 'weight affects dive speed' area, you spend most of the time in the area where power/weight makes most difference, then in the area where best top speed has most effect. Your a/c only spend a second or two in the next area where the P-47 ought to show an advantage. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Good Point!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
Also you took three a/c of similar performance, started too slow and too low, and dived too steep. A steep dive to get away at medium alt gets you to the deck fast, with the pursuer above you able to watch you pull out very soon and stay on top. As you've seen no worthwhile separation is achieved. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactally my feelings.. I think starting a little higher, and a little less dive angle (pitch) less than -45? and you should see the P47s true colors

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
The zoom of the Yak may not be as good as you think, to lose 250m is not good e retention if your engine has been running all the time.. If you had not dived, you'd expect to have gained 500+m in that time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That and dont change anything you dont have to

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
I'd like to repeat again that we here still don't seem to have a clear idea of how good dive/zoom characterisitics were used in real life. I'd really like to know what dive angles were used and how hard/gentle the pullout was, and what zoom angle was best.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT OF ALL! Combat pilot comments from 60+ years ago tend to leave out all the details required to recreate the test (scientific method) and therefore make it very hard to apply thier comments... In summary.. Combat pilots tend to have very little detail but plenty of bias! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

WWMaxGunz
09-01-2004, 11:06 AM
TV is not a factor???? If one plane is doing a long dive versus the other, the one
with the higher controllable max speed will either catch the other or outrun it.

Acceleration values will be dominated by the force of gravity. That's +10m/s every
second times the sine of the dive angle compared to *excess power* which shrinks as
velocity increases, to weight. That's your acceleration. Dive shallwer than 30
degrees and power to weight will play a bigger role but still not bigger than gravity.

Eric Shilling and other AVG members wrote about P-40's diving to escape. In the
detailed accounts it started with a 180 degree roll in under 2 seconds and at high
speed to start while the enemy would need over 6 seconds to roll inverted to follow.
That's an over 4 second lead at high speed before the race truely began.

Of course the P-47 could not do that to the FW's so how did that go? Max dive speed?


Neal

JaBo_HH--Gotcha
09-01-2004, 11:17 AM
Hi Guys.
Thanks for your responses !
@Tagert: can you please check the new tracks I add now. Beware ! they're somewhat bigger.

I used the Noncockpit view to have a constant dive angle(the artificial horizon I think it was 20?). I used Boost and automatic pitch if possible.

this time i picked some more planes and dived from 350-700km/h and just compared the time by counting the difference in the tracks.

I will check for the altitude but I invite everyone to help analysing (thankls in advance guys).

Setup: crimea, alt 5000m, full fuel load

Plane: / time from 350-700IAS
FW190-A9: 32 seconds
FW190-D9/44: 31
BF109K4: 32
P51D: 32
P47D22:32
P38L:33
SpitIXe:33

I didn't use trim to have it constant. And times may vary +-1second

Tests for the Russian birds will follow but now going to cinema http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Beware 2.7megs compressed.

http://www.black-crusade.de/hellhounds/divetest2.zip

But I still don't get what you mean by restrictive. Combat reports (however biased they may be or even exaggerated) speak of easier-to-witness differences so I think that 350-700km/h is more than enough. After that only TV makes the difference since a lot of planes cut out at 700....

@MAXGUNZ: I am not testing TV. It's obvious that such differences result in certain advantages etc. I want to see different ACCELARATIONS http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/gotcha.jpg

k5054
09-01-2004, 12:15 PM
As Neal points out, gravity is the major factor in acceleration as measured here. At 30degrees it's 5m/s/s where the engine-assisted acceleration will be &lt;1m/s/s and falling. That's why the aircraft are similar. No doubt the tracks will show more than the raw 32 secs from 350-700kph, and some differences will emerge, but these are all powerful a/c of similar top speeds and below the TV area where they should start to differ considerably. I don't think AEP models high-speed drag correctly, but this is merely an opinion based on analysis of some of Hyperion's figures. At the speeds mentioned here it is possible to make a close estimate of the acceleration, by calculation, and the calculations I've made (yes, I do have to make some assumptions to complete them) don't show big differences. It will be interesting to see from the tracks what height they are each at when they bust 700.

I don't think any pilot would fiddle with the pitch in this case in combat, it's a gamey device in AEP except in the Emil.
Why not CEM off, invulnerable, and from a higher start alt?

Tagert, you gonna run these the same way and graph them? What does the acceleration curve look like as an equation?

Gotcha, how was the movie?

WWMaxGunz
09-01-2004, 12:23 PM
Well remember that in combat the dives didn't start as side by side.
One pilot cut into a dive some distance in front of the other and
the other had to see, interpret, decide and react to what may have
been a feint. Survivors made it back to tell. You get a bit of a
jump and then if you can keep pulling away and avoid getting shot
you have left the enemy behind. And just how close would you want
to follow a Jug that could pullout of a dive and zoom over you and
back down before you got fully transitioned in to FW? I'd want to
keep that guy where a quick move he made could be followed by a
much lower G move on my part till he had bled enough E to be unable
to pull a fast one. I'd know that because that's how I've played
it ofr years in flight sims against anyone who couldn't lose me by
just flying off. But then, I've always liked fast planes with a lot
of guns and if I can get em, lots of cannon.

Open up Shaw's book and read about Johnson in his P-47 vs the Spit
in mock combat. First thing effective he does is roll and break a
bunch of times to get seperation from the Spit. Then during one of
the rolls he heads down steeply. The Spit pilots is still trying to
get his plane inverted when Johnson is well down in his dive. The
Spit pilot is just getting into his dive when Johnson transitions
and zooms up. The Spit pilot is just bringing his nose up and there's
Johnson coming down at him with a guns solution on his cockpit.
It all started with a seperation and opponent unable to match his
dive. Without the head start his dive and zoom advantage would not
have worked, but the whole account is billed as dive and zoom advantage.
Read the story an run the picture yourself, it's clearly there. That's
why I don't know what people really expect, it's not family car versus
hotrod unless you want to put a Pzl or I-153 up against a latewar fighter.


Neal

JaBo_HH--Gotcha
09-01-2004, 03:08 PM
@k5404: since my girl picked the movie.....well it was ok... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Higher alt ? Why not. i just took 5000 because I think above 5500 getting some power out of my fw190a will be messy :|

We can do that also. I am just wondering if drag as such is modelled at all. I mean I'Ve taken a big bunch of planes with striking differences.
P-51d laminar flow wing designed for high speed.
P-47D a plane that weighs a lot in between a Spit IX where even comparative combat reports from the R.A.F say that during the initial stages of a dive you could leave her... etc.
However, all planes accelarate virtually the same. I mean, see the BF109 compared to the P47. You wont leave her. She will stay on your six and make you eat the mk108.
That's odd. I will make some more tests with the Russian birds but I don't expect to see any difference.
I already compared 7 birds with next to NO difference. However, I am no rocket scientist (i enjoyed that post... *g*) so I can only read war-reports and conduct tests.
I mean I can do some tests online to compare relative dive speeds but I think most of us know the outcome and the discrepancies due to lag may be irritating.

Right now it seems as dives wont work....

Funny thing: i made divetests with 50? and 60? degrees and they nearly matched. Now i made with 20? they match again.

Keep it coming guys !

!S!

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/gotcha.jpg

TAGERT.
09-01-2004, 04:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
We can do that also. I am just wondering if drag as such is modelled at all. I mean I'Ve taken a big bunch of planes with striking differences.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Striking differences? As MaxGuns pointed out.. the differences are SMALL! Especially when you consider that gravity is the driving force here.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
P-51d laminar flow wing designed for high speed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>High speed.. what? High speed efficiently and control

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
P-47D a plane that weighs a lot in between a Spit IX where even comparative combat reports from the R.A.F say that during the initial stages of a dive you could leave her... etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Than we should do a comp between those two! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Also keep in mind.. I have alluded to this before.. But everyone seems to keep missing it.. It is NOT the speed difference that maters.. That is to say pick any point along the velocity curve and you wont see much difference.. Thus you all conclude that this means it does NOT match the combat reports. If so, you would be wrong. In that it is the speed difference over a small period of time that MATTERS!!! And it sums up.. By that I mean if your going down the road at 60mph and a car passes you at 70mph then in a very short amount of time he will be hundreds of feet in front of you.. put another way LEAVING YOU BEHIND! It is the SEPARATION pilots commented on, not the speed difference at each point along the way.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
However, all planes accelarate virtually the same.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And sense gravity is a constant and the driving factor just what did you expect?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
I mean, see the BF109 compared to the P47. You wont leave her. She will stay on your six and make you eat the mk108. That's odd.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Haven't done that test yet.. And I am working on a plot that will show you the LEAVE HER (separation) with time aspect instead of the speed at each point. The SEPARATION is a summing factor that get bigger and bigger at each point along the graph

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
I will make some more tests with the Russian birds but I don't expect to see any difference. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Because you looking at speed instead of the distance speed deltas give you.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
I already compared 7 birds with next to NO difference.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not true.. At least not true in those ones I have looked at

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
However, I am no rocket scientist (i enjoyed that post... *g*) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm no rocket scientist either.. But I did work on a project that shoots down rockets! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
so I can only read war-reports and conduct tests.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But you have to understand them too.. Separation has not be plotted yet... Only the speed difference at each point in time.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
I mean I can do some tests online to compare relative dive speeds but I think most of us know the outcome and the discrepancies due to lag may be irritating.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Enh.. not with my cable connect! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
Right now it seems as dives wont work....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Too early to tell IMHO.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
Funny thing: i made divetests with 50? and 60? degrees and they nearly matched. Now i made with 20? they match again.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Gravity is funny like that.. it don't change much! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
Keep it coming guys ! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Keeping up is not easy.. It is much easier to make a track.. flip a coin and say it *feels* that way.. But only the numbers will tell for sure. That and you have to look at the right numbers.. So far I have not plotted separation.. It will take a little more work to get my templet set up for that.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

[This message was edited by TAGERT. on Wed September 01 2004 at 06:22 PM.]

WWMaxGunz
09-01-2004, 06:24 PM
Okay guys, I'll try and be short here with what really ain't, but my head aches
from trying to relearn my old C and C++ ways into Winblows ways (why Windoze is
so "efficient", I learn more all the time....) and it's tylenol time while I try
and absorb the maze of what was so straight and functional.

Yes, grav accel by itself is the same for all and it's way more than thrust to mass.
However there is more to it on closer look.

Plane from start of dive on down has force of excess thrust going from +, reducing
as speed increases and becoming - at some point even before TV.
Plane from start has gravity which has accel the same for all but also
G x mass x sine(dive angle), all constant at constant dive angle.
Plane from start has drag which until compression increases roughly with square of
speed, i.e. speed at 1.1x start gets 1.1 x 1.1 as much drag.

Now from the start of the dive the accel due to gravity is fought by drag and the
G x mass x sine(dive angle) is what really carries the plane against the drag. So
to say "all objects fall at the same speed" without saying "in a vaccuum" or "being
of the same density and appx the same vertical speed" is incorrect unless one of the
two is in the conditions being applied, like bullet drop along near level paths.

A heavier plane of the same total drag will get more of that 5 m/s gravity accel
than a lighter plane of the same total drag, not including excess thrust. Below
maximum level speed the excess thrust to weight will add to the acceleration, and
if I am right it will continue so due to gravity counting for some of the drag
that a plane flying level's thrust is countered and equalled by. There should
be a general sort of derivation to at least get the basic function there but I
am not up to it, let a physics major deal with that.

Anyhow, bottom line is that less mass/drag should get less benefit from accel due
to gravity than the more mass/drag plane. Since at the start of the dive the
drag is less if the start speed isn't so fast, the penalty of drag isn't as much
and both planes get closer to the same gravity accel which is a big why of the
higher mass/drag plane really shining at dive speeds exceeding level maximum.

Level maximum is also a biggie here. The plane with the higher level maximum
speed will have the higher excess power at all speeds, IMHO. P-47... max level
speed... hmmmmm. Start the dive with one plane near its maximum speed and the
other still a ways to go and that throws a straight engine HP to weight out the
window. If the plane running near maximum speed is also lighter then again IMHO
it should start losing the race sooner.
That means that starting the dive compares at low speeds does fix things against
the plane with low excess thrust to mass even if it does have a higher max level
speed and more mass. Both planes starting slow the lighter plane has a large
excess thrust to mass and less drag than if the dive started at combat speed, what
you would expect when reading those accounts. Low start speed puts the Yak 3 with
an advantage, ditto the 109's and about every really decent small fighter with
good level acceleration from low and mid speeds.

Conditions of the comparison do affect the results, specifics of planes can then
make results of runs done mostly at not much over level maximum speed come out
closer in time to, like 700kph. From a low start speed they spend how much time
getting to level max, of 600+ kph, as compared to afterward? Don't wonder the
total time results are close, just pick diofferent planes or start speeds.

High alt steep dives... thinner air wayyyy up there, again it benefits the lower
mass to drag plane. How high up were those Spitfire super-dive tests run? And
the speed was expressed as mach, not TAS -- mach is slower up high so .8 mach is
less TAS than lower alt where the Spit hasn't the mass and power to defeat the
greater drag of the lower air.

That's not all but those are example of conditions affecting comparisons. I see
the combat stories as being from some minimum start speeds with some amount of
seperation or surprise making a head start for the plane making the run. I read
that interview from Johnson about when an FW was on his tail did he dive and he
stated no, he zoomed straight up and the FW couldn't follow him. I guess he kept
his speed up in combat and whenever there was a chance of getting bounced, or he
was just lucky. Luck is also a condition of combat.

Don't worry about the stories. first find the RANGE of what the planes can do
instead of repeating the same situation where you found a doubtful conclusion
again and again while yelling about the FM. Oleg is 100 steps ahead before the
sim ever started. Talk about advantage.


Neal

TAGERT.
09-01-2004, 10:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
However, all planes accelarate virtually the same. I mean, see the BF109 compared to the P47. You wont leave her. She will stay on your six and make you eat the mk108.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I beg to differ

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=167005207

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

JaBo_HH--Gotcha
09-02-2004, 01:34 AM
@Tagert: we're starting to spam the forums if we create a new thread for each conclusion or what we think it to be. Let's keep it tidy in one ok ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
I checked your thread and I say, If it will take you 32 seconds to get a first hint for seperation you're dead meat in the meantime...

But again, we sohuld keep it in ONE place otherwise it'S difficult to follow. I don't mind if you prove me wrong (not the first time not the last time...) but at least that way people can see where it all started and how this evolved. When this is all done have a CONCLUSION thread ok ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Again, nice discussion...

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/gotcha.jpg

k5054
09-02-2004, 06:20 AM
Neal, I agree with your summation of how the tests are affected if you start slow and go through the area where the lightest plane(compared to power) wins, then the fastest, then the heaviest (compared to drag). You end up eliminating the differences.
Gotcha, your results are probably a reasonable reflection of real life. Your P-47 won't get away from the 109 unless he had better dive entry conditions than just to pushover with the 109 already saddled up.

Tagert, if you flew the test at 25deg all the way, your separation in distance is just a trig function of the separation in height for any time point. You should get more accuracy by integrating it, but maybe not very different results, which will tell us whether we can use the height separation in future. When I've done this in calculation I haven't got what I'd consider large differences. In your results you've lost the 109 but the 190 is right there with you, about 200+ft behind I'd guess. Even the 109 is still a threat until you outzoom him.

TAGERT.
09-02-2004, 07:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
@Tagert: we're starting to spam the forums if we create a new thread for each conclusion or what we think it to be. Let's keep it tidy in one ok ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Spam? LOL! Hardly!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
I checked your thread and I say, If it will take you 32 seconds to get a first hint for separation you're dead meat in the meantime... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>32 seconds to first hint of separation? Oh.. I see what you thinking.. And your thinking wrong. Separation is happening every second the two velocity are not equal. That is what I was talking about.. and you will soon see.. When I graph separation. To date all I have plotted is speed differences.. Not the distance between the two aircraft as one pulls away from the other.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
But again, we should keep it in ONE place otherwise it'S difficult to follow.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I disagree.. In that it helps sometimes to start fresh. It is a mater of style really.. I'm sorry you don't like it.. But it hardly constitutes referring to it as spam.. More of a ctrl-alt-del on the topic and starting anew

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
I don't mind if you prove me wrong (not the first time not the last time...) but at least that way people can see where it all started and how this evolved. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well keep in mind I not doing this just for you.. Nor am I doing it to prove you wrong.. I'm just doing it because it is something I can do and I think it will help clear up a lot of things.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
When this is all done have a CONCLUSION thread ok ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well actually I all ready have.. The conclusion is that the statement that ALL aircraft in the game dive the same is not true.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
Again, nice discussion...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100! I have enjoyed talking with you and actually learned a lot in doing so.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

TAGERT.
09-02-2004, 07:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
Tagert, if you flew the test at 25deg all the way, your separation in distance is just a trig function of the separation in height for any time point. You should get more accuracy by integrating it, but maybe not very different results, which will tell us whether we can use the height separation in future.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually it is easier than that.. The hard part is doing it in excel easily. The separation is just the difference in the area under the two velocity curves. For example.. If you want to know what your separation is anywhere along the x axis simple take the area under the velocity curve of the P47 up to that point minus the area under the curve of the other plane up to that point and that is the distance you would have between the two planes

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
When I've done this in calculation I haven't got what I'd consider large differences. In your results you've lost the 109 but the 190 is right there with you, about 200+ft behind I'd guess. Even the 109 is still a threat until you outzoom him.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True.. The 190 is a formidable aircraft.. But the 109G is clearly not. And.. keep in mind I pushed the 190 to the point that she was shaking real bad.. In real life a pilot would have broken off the pursuit before that point.. Thus the P47 would have slipped away. There is a good reason they used the P47 for prop testing in the early 50s.. They needed a prop that could handle high speed dives! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

LEXX_Luthor
09-02-2004, 07:35 PM
Tagert:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But only the numbers will tell for sure.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok, post the numbers like robban. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

You may be right. I am attracted to the idea of seperation that was brought up several weeks ago by [the poster with short name who fight with Huck or Issy but I forgot]. But we must conduct these tests ourselves and we need your numbers.

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

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

JaBo_HH--Gotcha
09-03-2004, 12:38 AM
@Tagert:
With your stuff in mind I'd like to make some further tests this time based on seperation. I will conduct some closed Online (LAN or Internet tests) where two planes will be put against each other.
What do you think of this set up ?

FW190A5 vs. Spitfire MKIXc.
Starting ALt 5000m.
Icons are on and cockpit is off.
I will get the spitfire on the six of the FW190. We will sync speed to 400 km/h.
At this point the FW will conduct a 25?dive and keep it until TV and maybe then we can plot seperation easier if not scientifically efficient.
If the map is simple and empty I think this would work fine.
Tracks from both planes would then make it easy to check the input and the reaction of the pilot and besides it would be closer to combat results.

The point is: Recently I again aquired aviation books (really, IL2 made me spend 100€ into the game + add on, some further 100€ into a joystick and TrackIR and some 500€ into aviation-literature...I think I'm mad...)
this time it was: OSPREY: Late Marque SPitfire aces. At the end of the book there'S a small report (3 pages long) where R.A.F tested the Spitfire MK IXc + Spitfire XIV vs. BF109g and a FW190A4.
In regards to the SpitIX vs. A4 it said that the FW190 could just ROLL AWAY and DIVE and the SPit would be unable to follow.
In a sustained dive the FW190 would get the lead and seperation and is only vulnerable during a pull-out (which is the fact for every plane).
Against the XIV the lead was not that pronounced and the XIV would gain (comparing an A4 vs. an XIV I am not surprised...2,5 years difference..)

the whole point of the "Dives are all the same" is what k5054 already suggested. I just took down some "experiences" and compared the to reports and even documented tests. The point is that right now I couldn't see these tests work in the game. Not even once.I don't have the means to make scientific tests, so I am happy that you came around, even if you just want to prove me wrong but this makes things even better http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
The only thing that seems to work in the game are "horizontal accelaration" which is way different for a lot of planes and e-bleed which seems to affect some planes more than others.
But this is just perception and NOT scientific.

Ok weekend is coming ! Time for some more tests http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif 6 more hours until work ends... *sigh
BTW: when are oyu online flying ? maybe we could conduct some basic tests. I have a TS server ready and this would speed things up http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
!S!

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/gotcha.jpg

WWMaxGunz
09-03-2004, 07:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
OSPREY: Late Marque SPitfire aces. At the end of the book there'S a small report (3 pages long)
where R.A.F tested the Spitfire MK IXc + Spitfire XIV vs. BF109g and a FW190A4.
In regards to the SpitIX vs. A4 it said that the FW190 could just ROLL AWAY and DIVE and the
SPit would be unable to follow.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly the thing! FW roll is far faster than Spitfire. FW starts roll and Spitfire pilot
as some delay to react and start rolling. FW finishes roll and pulls back on stick to a
more than shallow dive. Spitifre is still rolling and while that, still moving forward.
The FW can pull through vertical on the way down and be heading in the opposite direction
of that forward movement by the time the Spit has finished rolling and can start getting
its' nose down.
This results in an incredible lead for the FW. Even with only a small acceleration difference
at matching speed the FW will just continue to widen that lead. The FW has a much higher speed
than the Spit at the time the Spit starts and even at shallow dive it is zooming away. Or
the FW could choose to climb to vertical, roll to head back at the Spit (no flat turn nonsense)
and come down on it.

Dive advantage in combat... a part of a maneuver, not the whole thing.
Some people want to speak of pilot accounts and then run 'tests' not matching what happened
in the combat situations. Or worse, they take a statement with no context and us it like
play dough.

Thank you Gotcha for a good picture and no departure to only lightly related conclusions!


Neal

TAGERT.
09-03-2004, 09:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH_Gotcha:
@Tagert:
With your stuff in mind I'd like to make some further tests this time based on seperation. I will conduct some closed Online (LAN or Internet tests) where two planes will be put against each other. What do you think of this set up ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well.. I plan on adding that to my excel template this weekend.. But if you do that, remember, you will need to re cored the TRACK on both PC! Because the DeviceLink only allows you to get the data from the user's aircraft. That and start at 7000 not 5000.. That is more around the operational alt of the 47 during escorts

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH_Gotcha:
FW190A5 vs. Spitfire MKIXc.
Starting ALt 5000m.
Icons are on and cockpit is off.
I will get the spitfire on the six of the FW190. We will sync speed to 400 kmh.
At this point the FW will conduct a 25 dive and keep it until TV and maybe then we can plot seperation easier if not scientifically efficient.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well there is NO position data aval to record via DeviceLink. So the math required to calculate it will have to be done for the old method.. Or this method. Unless you want to relay on eye-balling the distance.. But in light of the fact we have proven that eye-balls can be inaccurate I wouldn't trust them much. That and you should use a UDPSpeed type of until to display your pitch angle in both planes.. That and pick tow planes that are not so similar! As so many have said.. Late war stuff.. There is not that much difference in them. But at least you will be able to *watch* the track and *see* what the real pilots saw.. SEPARATION!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH_Gotcha:
If the map is simple and empty I think this would work fine.
Tracks from both planes would then make it easy to check the input and the reaction of the pilot and besides it would be closer to combat results.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
But.. the math would still have to be done in both methods.. The only adv of flying them both at the same time is you will be able to play the track back and actually *SEE* the separation.. But to *MEASURE* it and *GRAPH* it will require the same math for both methods.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH_Gotcha:
The point is: Recently I again aquired aviation books (really, IL2 made me spend 100pnd into the game + add on, some further 100pnd into a joystick and TrackIR and some 500pnd into aviation-literature...I think I'm mad...) this time it was OSPREY Late Marque SPitfire aces. At the end of the book there'S a small report (3 pages long) where R.A.F tested the Spitfire MK IXc + Spitfire XIV vs. BF109g and a FW190A4. In regards to the SpitIX vs. A4 it said that the FW190 could just ROLL AWAY and DIVE and the SPit would be unable to follow.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Which speaks of the 190s better roll rate relitive to the spit.. not it's dive rate relative to the spit

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH_Gotcha:
In a sustained dive the FW190 would get the lead and separation and is only vulnerable during a pull-out (which is the fact for every plane).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Get the lead in that it could roll faster and thus start the dive sooner.. As for pull-out problems in the 190.. My tests showed that to be modeld pretty well! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH_Gotcha:
Against the XIV the lead was not that pronounced and the XIV would gain (comparing an A4 vs. an XIV I am not surprised...2,5 years difference..)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Which is why I suggest picking dis-similar planes first.. That way the differences will be pronounced.. Thus you can calibrate what to look for.. So when you start testing planes that are more similar.. You will be able to pick out the differences. That is why I pick the 109G10 instead of the 109K to test against the P47D

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH_Gotcha:
the whole point of the "Dives are all the same" is what k5054 already suggested. I just took down some "experiences" and compared the to reports and even documented tests. The point is that right now I couldn't see these tests work in the game. Not even once.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think the "both flying at the same time thing" well help you *see* what I have been talking about with regards to SEPARATION.. In that during the flight you will *SEE* the two planes pull away from each other.. But when you plot the velocity you wont see much difference. Assuming you don't pick to similar airplanes.. Do the P47D-27 vs. Bf109G-10 and you will *SEE* what I am talking about! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH_Gotcha:
I don't have the means to make scientific tests, so I am happy that you came around, even if you just want to prove me wrong but this makes things even better http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The only thing that seems to work in the game are "horizontal acceleration" which is way different for a lot of planes and e-bleed which seems to affect some planes more than others. But this is just perception and NOT scientific.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Don't feel bad.. I think 80% of the guys claiming BUG are in the same boat.. They did one or two tests.. It didn't match what they expected.. Thus they concluded it must be a bug.. Never stopping to consider that it may be their expectations that needs a patch! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH_Gotcha:
Ok weekend is coming ! Time for some more tests http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif 6 more hours until work ends... sigh BTW: when are oyu online flying ? maybe we could conduct some basic tests. I have a TS server ready and this would speed things up http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
S<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
My girlfriend is going to see her mother this weekend.. I plan on working on that separation thing.. And taking a stab at writing my on UDP program to collect data.. So I might be on this weekend to take a break and have some fun!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

TAGERT.
09-03-2004, 10:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Dive advantage in combat... a part of a maneuver, not the whole thing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is true.. And alot of people dont realise that! The P47D relitive to alot of other aircraft was said to have a good roll rate.. Which Im sure was also part of the manuver that P47 pilots were talking about when they said they could out dive other aircraft!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Some people want to speak of pilot accounts and then run 'tests' not matching what happened in the combat situations.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactally! So many people take what a pilot said and READ INTO it way too much! Typically combat pilot statments are very short on details and very long on bias! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Or worse, they take a statement with no context and us it like play dough.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, Ok? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Thank you Gotcha for a good picture and no departure to only lightly related conclusions!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes Gotcha is a breath of fresh air relitive to some people here! He unlike most has an open mind on the subject!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

JG14_Josf
09-03-2004, 02:40 PM
k5054 wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Gotcha, your results are probably a reasonable reflection of real life. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please define reasonable.

http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/p47-fw190.jpg
http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/p47-fw190-2.jpg

Note:
(1) 210 m.p.h. to 275 m.p.h at 2000ft: The FW-190 accelerated faster than P-47 and gained approximately 200 yards.

Note:
(c) Diving:
(1) 10,000 feet to 3,000 feet, starting at 250 m.p.h. diving at angle of 65deg with constant throttle setting. The FW-190 pulled away rapidly at the beginning but the P-47 passed it at 3,000 feet with a much greater speed and had a decidedly better angle of pull out



If in level flight the FW-190 was able to gain 200 yards from 210 to 275 m.p.h. what then is a reasonable distance to gain if both planes were pitched into a dive from the same speed and diving at the same angle?

Would it be reasonable to conclude that in a dive the FW190 would gain less or more than 200 yards from 210 to 275 m.p.h. in a dive compared to the 200 yards the FW190 was able to gain on the P-47 in level flight?

Or would there be no difference in the distance gained between the FW190 and the P-47 in a dive compared to the distance gained in level flight from 210 m.p.h and 275 m.p.h.?

In other words would it be reasonable to conclude that the FW190 would at least gain 200 yards on the P-47 in a side by side dive from a speed of 210 m.p.h. to 275 m.p.h.?

Or would it be reasonable to conclude that the P-47 would have more mass to overcome drag in the dive so that the FW190 was less able to gain 200 yards and instead both planes would be side by side in a real dive unlike what is reported by the documents on Ring's web page?



What is the definition of reasonable?

Has anyone done a side by side acceleration comparison while on-line either in level flight or in a dive or both?

I've read that some players have done side by side dive acceleration tests with previous versions of the game and they reported that dive acceleration was virtually identical for all planes tested.

Is it reasonable to conclude that WWII fighter planes should all have virtually identical dive acceleration performance?

Did Oleg fix this dive acceleration parity?

JaBo_HH--Gotcha
09-03-2004, 04:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Don't feel bad.. I think 80% of the guys claiming BUG are in the same boat.. They did one or two tests.. It didn't match what they expected.. Thus they concluded it must be a bug.. Never stopping to consider that it may be their expectations that needs a patch! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not feeling bad ! I like the discussion. I'm still not entirely convinced because I want to see the seperation. I want to see it in the game. If I don't see it, It doesn'T work for me you know !
Since a lot of people at least partially agree on this "observations" I will go on. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Expect some more tracks soon !

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/gotcha.jpg

TAGERT.
09-03-2004, 05:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
I am not feeling bad ! I like the discussion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Cool!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
I'm still not entirely convinced because I want to see the seperation. I want to see it in the game. If I don't see it, It doesn'T work for me you know !<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I totally understand.. But you also have to understand just because you don't see it does not mean it isn't there! It simply means that maybe your doing something wrong or don't realize it when you do see it.

But at least your using the right terminology now!

That and I *think* you now know that the velocity curves are NOT showing separation! The velocity curves simply show the DIFFERENCE in velocity!

And.. ANY DIFFERENCE in velocity will cause SEPARATION!! That is to say...

When the velocity DIFFERENCE is SMALL (i.e. 70mph - 65mph = 5mph) the SEPARATION will happen SLOWLY. (Fw190 vs P47)

When the velocity DIFFERENCE is LARGE (i.e. 70mph - 10mph = 60mph) the SEPARATION will happen FAST. (P47 vs Bf109G6)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
Since a lot of people at least partially agree on this "observations" I will go on. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes.. A lot of people like yourself are struggling to adjust their expectations! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
Expect some more tracks soon !<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Cool! I just hope you took my advice and start from 7000 and use dis-similar planes.. Otherwise the velocity DIFFERENCE may be so SMALL that you don't VISUALLY see the SEPARATION changing much. To PROVE it to yourself that it does indeed exist in the game use the P47D-27 vs Bf109G6(late). Then try other planes

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

JaBo_HH--Gotcha
09-03-2004, 06:34 PM
I will do some comparative tests flying planes next to each other recording tracks on both clients.
What I want to see is whether, if both are synced up (for example fw190a5 vs. Spit IXc) I will see the FW190 seperating (thus gaining speed faster) or not. So far as I've said I've got hundreds of situation s in my mind where in a short dive after Split-S'ing from a Spit doing just a small drop and adding speed from 400 to 550 I didn't gain anything and I think this conincedes with observations of a lot players.

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/gotcha.jpg

WWMaxGunz
09-03-2004, 07:04 PM
The Spit can change pitch quicker and better than the FW.

Roll fast as a barrel but when you have gone 1 1/4 around, pull back quickly and
release quickly but not all the way. He will be a while trying to line back up.
Do your change so you lose alt and begin the shallow or more dive but not steep.
And don't do it when he is far behind as he will just turn less to follow while
you bleed speed. If he follows and turns outside you then roll to cross under
his nose, you have to roll much faster than he can or it don't work. Each time
you do it right, you gain angular seperation. But watch if he falls back, then
you can do a straight race if you can with slow seperation if you can depending
on the planes. It is possible to get screwed, especially if the other guy is
any good in a plane even close to yours once he is on your tail. From that
point on the mistake was made and only by being good or lucky do you have a
chance, there will be no magic of "my plane is better" unless it is a LOT better.

FW best advantages, roll maybe, power maybe, T/W sometimes, firepower maybe.
Maybes depend on opponent but you always get one or more. I don't see using
any one alone as a good tactic. I see turning in the vertical as the best way
to change direction esp against the Spit, so rolling and turning while diving
to mix two advantages is better than just diving.


Neal

JG14_Josf
09-03-2004, 08:48 PM
JaBo_HH--Gotcha,

If you can manage that test then please consider using and FW190A-4 and the Spitfire Mk.Vb,1941.

This test uses 190A-3 vs Spitfire VB (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/pro_190_survey_b_4.jpg)

The link above is a comparative combat test trial conducted in the summer of 1942.

On that page is listed these findings:

51. Dive
Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the FW.190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages.

If you need any more support as to the validity of those tests on Ring's page let me know. They are the same tests that are mentioned in two books:
Wings of the Luftwaffe by Eric Brown
and
FW190 in Combat by Alfred Price

Eric Brown describes how the FW190 used the dive acceleration advantage in dog fighting.

Alfred Price offers historical perspective on why those test were conducted and a letter from the Air Chief Marshal's conclusions concerning the FW190.

And there is also Robert Shaw's book that details energy tactics, the importance of dive acceleration in energy tactics and his opinion on the best method to gather relative performance information.

JaBo_HH--Gotcha
09-04-2004, 11:39 AM
check your PT Josf ! !S!

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/gotcha.jpg