PDA

View Full Version : Spit models and speed



Bull_dog_
05-23-2004, 04:03 PM
This is really for Oleg or anyone on the development team in case this doesn't sound right.... and for anyone who can help confirm or deny the test

I did a little rudimentary speed testing to see which models performed best at what altitudes. This isn't scientific or anything but as I started at sea level with the LF, HF and regular versions...up to 3000 meters I saw so little difference, I couldn't differentiate... at 7500 meters there was no appreciable (+- 5km/hr) between regular and HF models... so I went up to 9000 meters...now here I saw some difference.... this is on the tropical map so don't take this as absolute...remember I'm only looking at "relative" performance...

The LF settled in around 640km/hr the regular around 658 km/hr and the Hf at 680km/hr. So there was only about 40km/hr difference between a specially modified high altitude performer and a clipped low altitude version. Testing was done mostly on the tropical map with full fuel and ammo with the IXc model and boost...everything in automatic....down at sea level, they all hit about 535-540 km/hr on the tropical map.

I was going to post this as a bug to the appropriate people cause I thought maybe the aircraft got the same FM's by accident...but at super high altitude I saw some differences. I don't have historical data but I thought the LF versions w/ clipped wings should be faster at low level....more than it was.

I'm wondering if anyone else would be willing to do the test and confirm or deny my results and then look at historical relative differences...

Remember my disclaimer: this is a relative test not a test against published top end figures...I'm just interested in how the LF performs against the HF at sea level up to service ceiling. I have a tendancy to do my testing in QMB on the tropical map so I can get over water without getting shot at http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bull_dog_
05-23-2004, 04:03 PM
This is really for Oleg or anyone on the development team in case this doesn't sound right.... and for anyone who can help confirm or deny the test

I did a little rudimentary speed testing to see which models performed best at what altitudes. This isn't scientific or anything but as I started at sea level with the LF, HF and regular versions...up to 3000 meters I saw so little difference, I couldn't differentiate... at 7500 meters there was no appreciable (+- 5km/hr) between regular and HF models... so I went up to 9000 meters...now here I saw some difference.... this is on the tropical map so don't take this as absolute...remember I'm only looking at "relative" performance...

The LF settled in around 640km/hr the regular around 658 km/hr and the Hf at 680km/hr. So there was only about 40km/hr difference between a specially modified high altitude performer and a clipped low altitude version. Testing was done mostly on the tropical map with full fuel and ammo with the IXc model and boost...everything in automatic....down at sea level, they all hit about 535-540 km/hr on the tropical map.

I was going to post this as a bug to the appropriate people cause I thought maybe the aircraft got the same FM's by accident...but at super high altitude I saw some differences. I don't have historical data but I thought the LF versions w/ clipped wings should be faster at low level....more than it was.

I'm wondering if anyone else would be willing to do the test and confirm or deny my results and then look at historical relative differences...

Remember my disclaimer: this is a relative test not a test against published top end figures...I'm just interested in how the LF performs against the HF at sea level up to service ceiling. I have a tendancy to do my testing in QMB on the tropical map so I can get over water without getting shot at http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif