PDA

View Full Version : 4.08 Bf-109K-4 1.80 ata Radiator Drag Effects



AKA_TAGERT
04-15-2007, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I suggest to re-run the tests with fully open and fully closed radiators, then to the German standard described above, in each case at constant 110% + MW-50 as described in German tests. Oil and Coolant temperature should be recorded.
Hey Kurfurst!

I did the two tests you suggested. Today I will do the third and post the results later.

Now as for..


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I don't think it's exceeding it's RL counterpart. It's exceeding it's real life counterpart which had it's radiator flaps half-open, but if the real life counterpart would have it's radiators just opened, or in other words almost closed, with little drag and little cooling, like in effect most our planes do, the performance would be very similiar. Closing the rads would mean at least 2-3 m/sec boost, this is supported by RL tests.
As you said the RAD drag does not affect the ROC by much, only about 0.5m/s instead of the real world 2 to 3 m/s you noted.

To 'see' what I am talking about check out the full analysis at..

4.08 Bf-109K-4 1.80 ata Radiator Drag Effects at airwarfare (http://www.airwarfare.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=8086#8086)

Enjoy!

Kurfurst__
04-17-2007, 03:16 AM
It seems it's just a case that the radiator flaps don't have th variation the DRAG and COOLING effect-change as they did have in real life.

The following comments are for the below rated alt (ca 6000m) alt range. Above that it seems fine.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/DRAG/408/Bf-109K-4/ME_00/ROC.JPG

The figures you tested in the two extreme radiator flap position, ie. with FULLY CLOSED and FULLY OPEN, show a difference of 4-5 m/sec extra climb compared to real life values, which were obtained with with HALF-OPEN position.

In comparion, this Spitfire test showed 2.5 m/sec ROC increase under similiar conditions, if the radiator flaps were opened fully instead of the 'closed' position (the Spitfire's radiator flaps would never close fully though). Based on that, considering the significant differences between the 109 and Spit rad layout (the 109's radiator is far larger, though it's less appearant as most of it is buried inside the wing, it's flaps, unlike the Spit's, have inlet and outlet flaps and the outlet flaps also open at the top of the trailing edge. In brief the variation in drag - and thus in ROC - is much greater in it's two possible extreme positions, fully closed and fully open, vs. the Spitfires de-facto half-open and fully open positions)

Conclusion : We have in the sim what in real life would basically be a 109K-4 flying with it's radiator flaps stuck closed, regardless of what we'd like to set the rad flaps to; a very much reduced cooling capacity and quick coolant overheat, and a very much boosted climb rate. I'd say the figures observed in the sim are rather reasonable for that condition. It is possible that Maddox lacked figures for radiator drag on the 109.

I'd believe the ROC figures are rather reasonable when the radiators are fully closed, but the drag should be much increased for fully open position, with the corresponding increase in climb.

The historical figures should closely matched in-game when the radiator flaps are in middle-position, using max. power.

Feathered_IV
04-17-2007, 05:23 AM
All this talk of radiator settings just makes me sleepy.


http://www.funny-games.biz/pictures/cat/funny-cat-pic.jpg

AKA_TAGERT
04-19-2007, 07:53 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
It seems it's just a case that the radiator flaps don't have th variation the DRAG and COOLING effect-change as they did have in real life.

The following comments are for the below rated alt (ca 6000m) alt range. Above that it seems fine.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSI...109K-4/ME_00/ROC.JPG (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/DRAG/408/Bf-109K-4/ME_00/ROC.JPG)

The figures you tested in the two extreme radiator flap position, ie. with FULLY CLOSED and FULLY OPEN, show a difference of 4-5 m/sec extra climb compared to real life values, which were obtained with with HALF-OPEN position.

In comparion, this Spitfire test showed 2.5 m/sec ROC increase under similiar conditions, if the radiator flaps were opened fully instead of the 'closed' position (the Spitfire's radiator flaps would never close fully though). Based on that, considering the significant differences between the 109 and Spit rad layout (the 109's radiator is far larger, though it's less appearant as most of it is buried inside the wing, it's flaps, unlike the Spit's, have inlet and outlet flaps and the outlet flaps also open at the top of the trailing edge. In brief the variation in drag - and thus in ROC - is much greater in it's two possible extreme positions, fully closed and fully open, vs. the Spitfires de-facto half-open and fully open positions)

Conclusion : We have in the sim what in real life would basically be a 109K-4 flying with it's radiator flaps stuck closed, regardless of what we'd like to set the rad flaps to; a very much reduced cooling capacity and quick coolant overheat, and a very much boosted climb rate. I'd say the figures observed in the sim are rather reasonable for that condition. It is possible that Maddox lacked figures for radiator drag on the 109.

I'd believe the ROC figures are rather reasonable when the radiators are fully closed, but the drag should be much increased for fully open position, with the corresponding increase in climb.

The historical figures should closely matched in-game when the radiator flaps are in middle-position, using max. power. I thought you said there was real world data (RWD) that showed 2-3m/s increase from RAD FULL OPEN to CLOSED?

That and the RWD ROC refernce used here was done at RAD HALF open?

So lets go with the 3m/s increase.. HALF of that is 1.5m/s.

So..

With regards to the RWD at HALF OPEN.. That means the ROC is about 1.5m/s less than it would be if done at FULL CLOSED.

With regards to the GAME, the FULL CLOSED is 5m/s better than RWD at HALF OPEN

So..

5m/s - 1.5m/s = 3.5m/s

Therefore the in-game 109K-4 with RAD FULL CLOSED is climbing about 3.5m/s better than it should at around ~5000m.

That and having the RAD OPEN only reduced the in-game ROC by about 0.5m/s where as you said there is RWD that shows it reducing it by about 2-3m/s. So there is no real down side to flying with them FULL OPEN!

But..

That is kind of a wash in that it appears that the in-game 109K-4 over heats faster than it should?

IN SUMMARY
<LI>The ROC should be adj down by at least 3.5m/s at mid altitudes
<LI>If they fix the over heat issue, than the RAD drag should be increased to cause a 2-3m/s reduction in ROC insted of only 0.5m/s

anarchy52
04-19-2007, 01:01 PM
Well done.

However, I've noticed a general pattern concerning climb rates. I've been playing with couple of soviet ac and comparing the in game climb rate values IL2C and charts from a book. I superimposed the Il2C charts onto the book charts.

LaGG-3:
http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/climb/LaGG-3s4.gif

MiG-3:
http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/climb/MiG-3.gif

Yak-1:
http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/climb/Yak-1.gif

La-5:
http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/climb/La-5.gif

La-5FN:

http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/climb/La-5FN.gif

La-7:
http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/climb/La-7.gif

AKA_TAGERT
04-19-2007, 04:13 PM
Nice!

What book is that? It sort of looks like the grahs from the TSAGI charts I have seen. But much cleaner!

On that note.. looks like USSR, RAF and Lw planes exceed their ROCs by a good percentage at all altitudes! Where as the US planes don't! At least in the ones I have tested thus far.

As for he shape, At lest least those USSR graphs have the same basic shape as the real one, just shifted. Where as the F6F chart looks nothing like it's real chart.

JG4_Helofly
04-19-2007, 04:23 PM
Before you say all lw and ussr planes are overmodeled in roc you should check if this is true.

faustnik
04-19-2007, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
Before you say all lw and ussr planes are overmodeled in roc you should check if this is true.

Agree 101%

AKA_TAGERT
04-19-2007, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
Before you say all lw and ussr planes are overmodeled in roc you should check if this is true. So what part of me saying "At least in the ones I have tested thus far" did you NOT understand?

NancyBoyOnYer6
04-19-2007, 08:08 PM
Not again http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

AKA_TAGERT
04-19-2007, 08:13 PM
Yet another unsatisfied blue customer upset with the results?

M_Gunz
04-19-2007, 08:13 PM
On that note.. looks like USSR, RAF and Lw planes exceed their ROCs by a good percentage at all altitudes! Where as the US planes don't! At least in the ones I have tested thus far.

There is some uncertainty on the last applying to more than the preceeding sentence. In general
unless there is some indication otherwise, it don't go to both.

3 + 2 * 4 is not the same as (3 + 2) * 4

Your english construction by what most people read does not have the explicit parenthesis.
It's not a hard and fast rule but;

1) when you want to be clear, do the extra bits
2) when you don't do the extra bits, you share blame over miscommunication error.

AKA_TAGERT
04-19-2007, 08:15 PM
Im sorry, where you operating under the impression that I am an out of work English major?

One that has nothing better to do than proof read the things I say over and over in the hopes that even the slow ones will not be confused with the order in which I said something?

If so..

For future reference know that I am not.

Thanks!

VW-IceFire
04-19-2007, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
Before you say all lw and ussr planes are overmodeled in roc you should check if this is true.
Tagert's already done a fair bit of testing on some different aircraft. Not extensively across the board but the man is indicating a trend and he's in a very good position to state such a thing.

Xiolablu3
04-19-2007, 11:49 PM
Which RAF planes have you tested TAgert?

The only one I saw was your test on the Tempest and the line was almost exactly the same as its real world line.

AKA_TAGERT
04-20-2007, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Which RAF planes have you tested TAgert?

The only one I saw was your test on the Tempest Roger the TEMPEST


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
and the line was almost exactly the same as its real world line. Exactaly my point!

The SHAPE of the TEMPEST curve, as with these USSR and Lw planes look alot like the real world data ROC SHAPES!

But..

The values are not right! The RAF and Lw planes I have tested thus far are shifted to the right (increasing the ROC).

Where as the F6F ROC SHAPE looks nothing like the real shape.. AND it's values are wrong, only there are shifted left (decreasing the ROC) at mid to low altitudes and shifted right at high altitudes. On that note, the 109K-4 does have the right shape, but it is shifted right for mid to low alt and shifted left for high alt. Where as the TEMPEST was shifted right at all altitudes, cept the point where the SC changed.

Again, just with reagrads to the ones I have tested thus far!

M_Gunz
04-20-2007, 07:43 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Im sorry, where you operating under the impression that I am an out of work English major?


Making text clear don't take being an english major. It takes being explicit and realizing the
potential for error in communication (for those of us that are not mind-readers or self-gods)
when replying to posts.

When what you write has more than one reasonable meaning based on what was written as opposed
to what you meant which may be one of those -
then -
saying "What part of" or similar just locks a two-way argument cycle in place with neither
side working from the same map.

If you don't realize the holes in your own text then the argument is still your fault, it
just drags on longer.

AKA_TAGERT
04-20-2007, 07:59 AM
Ah, ok, allow me to adj my last statement

For future reference know that I am not! Nor do I care!

Thanks!

Xiolablu3
04-20-2007, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Which RAF planes have you tested TAgert?

The only one I saw was your test on the Tempest Roger the TEMPEST


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
and the line was almost exactly the same as its real world line. Exactaly my point!

The SHAPE of the TEMPEST curve, as with these USSR and Lw planes look alot like the real world data ROC SHAPES!

But..

The values are not right! The RAF and Lw planes I have tested thus far are shifted to the right (increasing the ROC).

Where as the F6F ROC SHAPE looks nothing like the real shape.. AND it's values are wrong, only there are shifted left (decreasing the ROC) at mid to low altitudes and shifted right at high altitudes. On that note, the 109K-4 does have the right shape, but it is shifted right for mid to low alt and shifted left for high alt. Where as the TEMPEST was shifted right at all altitudes, cept the point where the SC changed.

Again, just with reagrads to the ones I have tested thus far! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would not say that the Tempest is very much out tho, mate with regards to a computer game simulation. Trying to get it much closer would be extremely time consuming I am sure. Its also possible you are just an exceptional pilot and acheieved a slightly higher ROC that the average when the FM was made. If all planes were this close I would be extrememly pleased with the sim!

As for thre F6F, I am not sure I havent seen your test, but would like to.

the Bf109K I agree is way off at the normal combat heights of 0-4000m.

AKA_TAGERT
04-20-2007, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I would not say that the Tempest is very much out tho, mate with regards to a computer game simulation.
Agreed 100%!

Oleg's goal is 5%, and the tempest's ROC is only off by 9%, where as the 109K-4's ROC is off by 25% at mid altitudes


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Trying to get it much closer would be extremely time consuming I am sure.
Your guess is as good as mine on that one! I have no idea how long it takes to tune an FM!


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Its also possible you are just an exceptional pilot and acheieved a slightly higher ROC that the average when the FM was made. If all planes were this close I would be extrememly pleased with the sim!
Well, I used the autopilot to do that test.. So, it does not get much better than that! So you could think of it as the best any pilot could do!


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
As for thre F6F, I am not sure I havent seen your test, but would like to.
I have a link to it in the F6F thread.. or just head over to airwarfare


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
the Bf109K I agree is way off at the normal combat heights of 0-4000m.
Roger that!

ploughman
04-20-2007, 01:48 PM
Tag, do you have a link to that auto-pilot program? I've had a look for it but can't find it.

AKA_TAGERT
04-20-2007, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Tag, do you have a link to that auto-pilot program? I've had a look for it but can't find it.
Here is a link to CWOS where the maker of the autopilot can be contacted!

Even if you dont use it! Thank him for it! In that it took alot of work to do it! I know, I started to make on myself several times but gave up! You have to have a good controls and programing background to make such a good util!

autopilot (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=13359)

ploughman
04-20-2007, 01:57 PM
Thanks, will thank him.

AKA_TAGERT
04-21-2007, 07:42 AM
No problem!

Kurfurst__
04-21-2007, 08:51 AM
The problem is not really that the 109K in game has too good climb rate, it is that neither it's climb rate or it's engine's tendency to overheat change much at all with variation of radiator flap position, as noted numerous times.

The issue is not with the modelling of the aircraft's climb rate, but with the modelling of it's radiator drag and cooling capacity.

Tagert's testing seem to indicate that there's very little difference in rate of climb wheter the radiators are fully open, or fully closed.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/DRAG/408/Bf-109K-4/ME_00/ROC.JPG

Real life testing of a Spitfire which we can use as an easily-used analogue for radiator flap position's effect on climb rate, with half-open and fully open radiators seems to suggest about 500 fpm, or 2.54 m/sec increase due to the decrease drag from the radiator flaps when half-open. http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165climb.gif

Based on that, the Bf 109K-4's climb rate increase should be higher, since the 109 radiators were larger and had wider range of operation (fully open/closed vs. half open/fully open. Ie.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/109Frad_open-closed.jpg

Here's an apprx. of how the curve should look like, if the characteristics would be modelled correctly for OPEN and closed radiators. With half-open radiators, the aircraft should match the historical curves.

These are just approximiations, just to show the nature of the modelling error. The climb numbers a vagoue, just apprx. correct.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/ROC.jpg

AKA_TAGERT
04-21-2007, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
The problem is not really that the 109K in game has too good climb rate, it is that neither it's climb rate or it's engine's tendency to overheat change much at all with variation of radiator flap position, as noted numerous times.

The issue is not with the modelling of the aircraft's climb rate, but with the modelling of it's radiator drag and cooling capacity
Disagree 100%


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Tagert's testing seem to indicate that there's very little difference in rate of climb wheter the radiators are fully open, or fully closed.
Roger which is why I said that it is less than 1m/s


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Real life testing of a Spitfire which we can use as an easily-used analogue for radiator flap position's effect on climb rate, with half-open and fully open radiators seems to suggest about 500 fpm, or 2.54 m/sec increase due to the decrease drag from the radiator flaps when half-open. Ill keep that in mind when talking about the Spitfire.. but this is about the 25% error in the 109K-4 ROC.


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Based on that, the Bf 109K-4's climb rate increase should be higher, since the 109 radiators were larger and had wider range of operation (fully open/closed vs. half open/fully open. Ie.
Based on a Spitfire? Why?


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Here's an apprx. of how the curve should look like, if the characteristics would be modelled correctly for OPEN and closed radiators. With half-open radiators, the aircraft should match the historical curves.

These are just approximiations, just to show the nature of the modelling error. The climb numbers a vagoue, just apprx. correct.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/ROC.jpg
Disagree 100%

NOTE you made a mistake when you shifted the curve by 3m/s. That and you did not shift it by a constant on some curves and did so on others. The most you should shift it left or right is 1.5m/s. If the difference between fully open and fully closed is only 2-3m/s. That and the real world data is done at half open! Thus you have already used up half of the full drag effect. Thus you should only shift the curve by 1.5m/s if you 'assume' the 3m/s increase, and shift the curve by 1.0m/s if you 'assume' the 2m/s increase. Therefore even when the RAD drag is taken into account the ROC is still off by <span class="ev_code_yellow">3.5m/s</span> at mid altitudes (~5,000m).

For example lets use the 3m/s increase.. HALF of that is 1.5m/s.

So..

With regards to the RWD at HALF OPEN.. That means the ROC is about 1.5m/s less than it would be if done at FULL CLOSED.

With regards to the GAME, the FULL CLOSED is 5m/s better than RWD at HALF OPEN

So..

5m/s - 1.5m/s = <span class="ev_code_yellow">3.5m/s</span>

Therefore the in-game 109K-4 with RAD FULL CLOSED is climbing about <span class="ev_code_yellow">3.5m/s</span> better than it should at around ~5000m. Even more so if you use the 2m/s difference!

That and having the RAD OPEN only reduced the in-game ROC by about 0.5m/s where as you said there is RWD that shows it reducing it by about 2-3m/s. So there is no real down side to flying with them FULL OPEN!

Kettenhunde
04-21-2007, 11:35 AM
On that note.. looks like USSR, RAF and Lw planes exceed their ROCs by a good percentage at all altitudes! Where as the US planes don't! At least in the ones I have tested thus far.

Gonna repost this here. Not so much for Tagert who seems emotionally attached to his conspiracy conclusions.

If you have one countries aircraft which match consistently their documented performance while no other countries performance matches the country of origin performance it can only be one of two things:

1. There is a conspiracy to over inflate the game shape performance of all the other countries. This is so they may dominate that countries game shape and feel good beating them up virtually.

<insert pointy tin foil hat icon>

2. All the other countries performance has been corrected to that countries standard atmosphere model.

This correction must be done in order to compare relative performance. Personally I would pick the US model as it was the closest to the 1976 standard which has become the world standard.

Not much changed below 65,000 ft in the US model AFAIK. The NACA 1954,1956, and 1962 can still be found in use today for certain applications. Most used being the 1956. All were slight modifications of earlier atmospheres. In fact all atmospheric models are derived and not experimental. You just the use the ideal gas law:

PV = mRT


The differences are what are "standard" conditions.

Temperature
Lapse rate
density
pressure
speed of sound

Without a standard you are essentially comparing planes which all start the climb at different altitudes!

If you took three planes that all have the exact same climb rate and tested them under different atmospheric conditions you would get similar results to this:

Plane 1 begins at 2500 below MSL on a cold day - Climbs like a raped ape according to the chart.

Plane 2 Begins at 8000 ft above MSL on warm day - My chart says this plane can't climb at all. It is horrible and would be out climbed by Plane 1 easily!

Plane 3 gets to starts a MSL on a spring day - Good climb but not as good as Plane 1. Would definitely out climb plane 2.

Who is going to have the better measured climb performance??

All the best,

Crumpp

AKA_TAGERT
04-21-2007, 11:36 AM
And I am gonna repost this here. Not so much for Crump who seems emotionally attached to this game.

But..

For the rest who prefer to address the actual test DATA instead of trying to turn this into a flame fest by attacking me instead of addressing the DATA. Why do they do that? My guess is they want to get the thread locked, thus silencing any thread that points out a blue plane is exceeding it's rated values.

Most of us know, or at least I hope most of us know that each country had a slightly different method of calculating a STANDARD day prior to the 50s when the standard was established and agreed upon. But what ever the differences were between each countries standard it can be taken into account. That and from my e-mail exchanges I know Oleg is well aware of these differences! The good news for us is that most of the REAL WORLD DATA we have to look at is from low altitude testing! By low I man below 35kft! In that at low altitudes the differences in the standards was not that big! It was at the higher altitudes where things were not well understood during the 40s which in turn caused each country to have a different way of doing it. The below 35kft stuff was pretty well understood by the 40s.

Now as for the conditions of one test day being different from another test day.

WELL NO $HIT!

Why do you think each country came up with the definition of a STANDARD DAY?

It was so they could take test results from one test day, say a HOT day, and compare them to the test results from another day, say a COLD day. By converting the results of both days to a STANDARD day!

Take Crumps 'DUH' example of how a plane climbs better on a COLD day than a HOT day. Say the definition of a STANDARD day was a WARM day (i.e. half way in-between a HOT and COLD day).

if the ROC test was preformed on a COLD day the results from that test would be ADJUSTED DOWN to STANDARD day values.
if the ROC test was preformed on a HOT day the results from that test would be ADJUSTED UP to STANDARD day values.

That was the whole purpose of defining a STANDARD day so the results could be compare from one test to another! That is to say apples to apples on the apple scale!

This is not rocket science! Just common since! I find it amazing that Crump considers this to be such a revelation!

Kettenhunde
04-21-2007, 12:00 PM
The first standard atmospheric models were developed in the 1920's in both Europe and the United States. The slight differences between the models were reconciled and an internationally accepted model was introduced in 1952 by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).

This new ICAO Standard Atmosphere was officially accepted by NACA in 1952 and forms the basis of tables in NACA report 1235. The tables extended from 5 km below to 20 km above mean sea level.

http://www.suite101.com/lesson.cfm/17507/809/2

Before 1952 there was no international standard atmosphere.

All atmospheric models are pretty much the same as they are derived from the ideal gas law. There is no differences in mechanics.

The only real difference is what conditions we are going to set as standard.

Germany picks a cold dry winter day and that is the standard.

Russia picks a humid summer day and that is the standard.

England picks a dry spring day....

so on and so forth.

That is just temperature. Pressure was not standard either.

If you do any flying then you are well aware of density altitude effects.


It can prevent you from taking off from the same runway you did the day before. It will sap power from your engine. It can eliminate any chance of a climb rate on departure. It can drastically increase your takeoff and landing rolls. What aviation phenomenon has this much power over your flying? Density altitude.

http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/content/2005/may/density_altitude.html

Today we all use 59F and 29.92mmHG for temperature and pressure for example.

During WWII the standard day was set by the country of origin.

All the best,

Crumpp

AKA_TAGERT
04-21-2007, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The first standard atmospheric models were developed in the 1920's in both Europe and the United States. The slight differences between the models were reconciled and an internationally accepted model was introduced in 1952 by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).

This new ICAO Standard Atmosphere was officially accepted by NACA in 1952 and forms the basis of tables in NACA report 1235. The tables extended from 5 km below to 20 km above mean sea level. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
DUH!

As in that is exactly what I have been telling you for days now! Even went as far as to re-post it for you on this page!

And just to be clear here.. I want to point out that your just ASSuming that they all picked a different day type!

From what I gathered via my e-mail exchanges with Oleg (who I trust more than you) is that the "slight differences between the models" was onl an issue at high altitudes! As in above 35kft! As in nobody in the 40s understood the upper atmosphere that well! It was NOT until the 50s where ROCKETS operating above 35kft that it became an issue. Therfore the difference in stanards at lower altitudes, if any, can accounted for. Now with that said, AGAIN, note that all the data we have been talking about thus far is well below the 35kft level!

SAVVY?

Kettenhunde
04-21-2007, 12:26 PM
addressing the DATA

Tagert,

Your data is being addressed by my posting with a logical explanation for the differences you are seeing.

One that is not a pointy tin foil hat conspiracy theory but rather based on the science of flight.

It is not a personal attack on you in spite of your stubbornness and ignorance.


"slight differences between the models"

Exactly. I have stated several times that all atmospheric models are derived from the same mechanics. They all work exactly the same.

The differences is in the conditions of their respective standard day.

This makes it easy to convert from one standard day to another countries standard day to find the new density altitude. The mechanics of the model are all the same.

All the best,

Crumpp

AKA_TAGERT
04-21-2007, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Tagert,

Your data is being addressed by my posting with a logical explanation for the differences you are seeing.

One that is not a pointy tin foil hat conspiracy theory but rather based on the science of flight.

It is not a personal attack on you in spite of your stubbornness and ignorance.

Sorry.. But I was not referring to the part where you are repeating back to me what I told you days ago! I was referring to this part..


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Gonna repost this here. Not so much for Tagert who seems emotionally attached to his conspiracy conclusions.

SAVVY?


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Exactly. I have stated several times that all atmospheric models are derived from the same mechanics. They all work exactly the same.
Is what I have been telling you for days now! And during the 40s they all understood the below 35kft atmosphere enough to all come up with very similar results


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
The differences is in the conditions of their respective standard day.
Again, Ill take Oleg's word over your guess!


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
This makes it easy to convert from one standard day to another countries standard day to find the new density altitude. The mechanics of the model are all the same.
Glad to see it is finally sinking in!

PS your welcome!

JG14_Josf
04-21-2007, 01:09 PM
Ill take Oleg's word over your guess!

Tagert,

What is that word that you take from Oleg?

Can you quote it?

Please note that I am not attacking Tagert. I'm asking for clarification concerning Oleg's word. What is it in this case?

What is Oleg's word in this case (the word that Tagert takes)?

I'm not attacking the game tests done by Tagert either.

I'm also not attacking the REAL tests used as a reference by Tagert.

I'm wondering if Oleg's word (the word taken by Tagert) can be quoted somehow. I'd rather read that word myself to see if that word is understandable as a need to find out if the REAL data he (Oleg) uses to model the planes climb rate are accurately adjusted for the differences in an atmospheric standard.

I'm not even attacking the possible claim that the REAL data Tagert uses has been accurately adjusted for the differences in an atmospheric standard between his chosen REAL data and his GAME tests.

I'm just asking for the quote from Oleg.

AKA_TAGERT
04-21-2007, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Ill take Oleg's word over your guess!

Tagert,

What is that word that you take from Oleg?

Can you quote it?

Please note that I am not attacking Tagert. I'm asking for clarification concerning Oleg's word. What is it in this case?

What is Oleg's word in this case (the word that Tagert takes)?

I'm not attacking the game tests done by Tagert either.

I'm also not attacking the REAL tests used as a reference by Tagert.

I'm wondering if Oleg's word (the word taken by Tagert) can be quoted somehow. I'd rather read that word myself to see if that word is understandable as a need to find out if the REAL data he (Oleg) uses to model the planes climb rate are accurately adjusted for the differences in an atmospheric standard.

I'm not even attacking the possible claim that the REAL data Tagert uses has been accurately adjusted for the differences in an atmospheric standard between his chosen REAL data and his GAME tests.

I'm just asking for the quote from Oleg. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So what part of "From what I gathered via my e-mail exchanges with Oleg " do you not understand?

But don't take my word for it!

Feel free to email Oleg yourself!

Kettenhunde
04-21-2007, 01:36 PM
Tagert,

It is clear you do not have a clue what I am talking about. It's ok. You just play a game and this a tough concept to grasp even for many pilots.

You have certainly confused the mechanics of atmospheric modeling with the conditions of that models standard day.

In the real atmosphere flying a real plane, your density altitude can vary on the same flight! That is one of the most important reasons why you monitor ATIS and AWOS in flight.

If the standard day conditions were so close then why in the world was it such a big deal when the world finally adopted one standard day?

What do think is going to happen to the TASGI data when it is corrected to a different density altitude from the VVS standard day?

Say if was corrected to the US standard day.

And the US standard day was at a lower density altitude than the VVS standard day?

I will go ahead tell you. The curve of the VVS data would shift up very much like your test results.

All the best,

Crumpp

AKA_TAGERT
04-21-2007, 01:40 PM
Just to be crystal, I never said it would or would not!

All I pointed out to you thus far is the FACT that your guessing at the def of a Lw std day

And..

That your repeating back to me what I told you days ago with regards to std atm.

JG14_Josf
04-21-2007, 01:45 PM
So what part of...

Tagert,

The part I don't understand is the part where I read what Oleg said concerning how his REAL data is adjusted to account for atmospheric standards used by different countries so as to make his REAL data more accurate as he uses his data to model the planes in the IL2 software.

I can't take your word for something that you keep secret. I can understand why you might want to keep whatever Oleg said a secret. That is OK. Perhaps you can manage to paraphrase what Oleg said concerning how his REAL data is adjusted to account for atmospheric standards used by different countries so as to make his REAL data more accurate as he uses his data to model the planes in the IL2 software?

I can understand how you might not want to paraphrase what Oleg actually said too. That is also OK. I'm just asking for a more accurate version of what Oleg actually did say. I am interested in what Oleg does say concerning how his REAL data is adjusted to account for atmospheric standards used by different countries so as to make his REAL data more accurate as he uses his data to model the planes in the IL2 software. That would be an interesting thing to read; however – I see no need to bother Oleg with something that he may want to keep secret. Actually I see no reason to bother Oleg at all – he manages to do just fine without my bothering him.

AKA_TAGERT
04-21-2007, 01:46 PM
So what part of "Feel free to email Oleg yourself!" did you not understand?

In that it was not one statement by him that I could quote for you! It was, AS I SAID, something I learned from him (i.e. GATHERED) from 'several' emails (i.e. e-mail EXCHANGES) from a few years ago. I don't even know if I still have the emails, and even if I did I would not post something he said here without his permission.

SAVVY?

JG14_Josf
04-21-2007, 01:49 PM
So what part of "Feel free to email Oleg yourself!" did you not understand?

Tagert,

The part where I don't need your permission to do something that I think is wrong? How about that part?

AKA_TAGERT
04-21-2007, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
The part where I don't need your permission to do something that I think is wrong? How about that part? Think again

Kettenhunde
04-21-2007, 01:54 PM
All I pointed out to you thus far is the FACT that your guessing at the def of a Lw std day

Show me where I have guessed at the LW standard day?

Your making things up in your mind now.

All I have said is:


If you have one country's aircraft which match consistently their documented performance while no other countries performance matches the country of origin performance it can only be one of two things:

1. There is a conspiracy to over inflate the game shape performance of all the other countries. This is so they may dominate that country's game shape and feel good beating them up virtually.

<insert pointy tin foil hat icon>

2. All the other countries performance has been corrected to that one country's standard atmosphere model.

All the best,

Crumpp

edited for clarity

AKA_TAGERT
04-21-2007, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">All I pointed out to you thus far is the FACT that your guessing at the def of a Lw std day

Show me where I have guessed at the LW standard day?

Your making things up in your mind now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sure, no problem


Originally posted by Kettenhunde on the previous page:
Germany picks a cold dry winter day and that is the standard.

Russia picks a humid summer day and that is the standard.

England picks a dry spring day...

SAVVY?

Kettenhunde
04-21-2007, 02:00 PM
You think that example is my claim of a LW standard day?

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

Sure shows some LW bias on my part if that is the case. If a LW standard day was a cold winter day then corrected performance would be much worse than any German document shows.

Really highlights your knowledge of this!

All the best,

Crumpp

AKA_TAGERT
04-21-2007, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
You think that example is my claim of a LW standard day?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
No, that is my proof that you are guessing at it!

As in your don't know for sure! Thus you pick the best case blue senario.. like you did with the 7% error instead of the 43% error


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Sure shows some LW bias on my part if that is the case.
DING!


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
If a LW standard day was a cold winter day then corrected performance would be much worse than any German document shows.
Nice GUESS!


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Really highlights your knowledge of this!
You poor thing!

I guess me pointing out the FACT that you are just repeating back to me what I allready told you days ago kind of upset you.

faustnik
04-21-2007, 02:04 PM
Do you guys realize that you are turning these threads into verbal slap fights?

I bet a lot could get done if you tried to listen to each other.

AKA_TAGERT
04-21-2007, 02:35 PM
Good point!

I got better things to do right now.. Like finish my 109K-4 ROC error wright up!

I check in later to see if I can answer any more of Josf's questions about the title of this thread, or point out that Crump is repeating back to me things I told him days ago!

See ya in a few!

Kettenhunde
04-21-2007, 02:38 PM
Tagert,

A cold winters day is generally a lower density day than a hot summer day.

Aircraft will perform better at low density altitudes. That standard day would most likely be at a higher density altitude so the performance would be reduced.

http://virtualskies.arc.nasa.gov/weather/tutorial/tutorial2f.html

All the best,

Crumpp

M_Gunz
04-21-2007, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
I got better things to do right now.. Like finish my 109K-4 ROC error wright up!


Say what ya want about the 109 but please leave Wilbur and Orville out of this!

Xiolablu3
04-21-2007, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I would not say that the Tempest is very much out tho, mate with regards to a computer game simulation.
Agreed 100%!

Oleg's goal is 5%, and the tempest's ROC is only off by 9%, where as the 109K-4's ROC is off by 25% at mid altitudes


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Trying to get it much closer would be extremely time consuming I am sure.
Your guess is as good as mine on that one! I have no idea how long it takes to tune an FM!


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Its also possible you are just an exceptional pilot and acheieved a slightly higher ROC that the average when the FM was made. If all planes were this close I would be extrememly pleased with the sim!
Well, I used the autopilot to do that test.. So, it does not get much better than that! So you could think of it as the best any pilot could do!


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
As for thre F6F, I am not sure I havent seen your test, but would like to.
I have a link to it in the F6F thread.. or just head over to airwarfare


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
the Bf109K I agree is way off at the normal combat heights of 0-4000m.
Roger that! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm 9% does seem a bit high, I thought it was closer to 5%.

Its possibly because you used Autopilot, but then again if you also used Autopilot in the F6F and other US plane tests and they were underperfoming then something needs tweaking.

I dont think all the US planes underperform because the P39 seems to be better in the game than the US and RAF reports suggest it should be, and we have a super late version of hte P38 that I believe climbs very well? But of course this is no excuse for the F6F and P51 to be to slow at climbing or the Bf109 and La5 to be climbing far too fast.

We also have to remember that the FW190A version should turn better and is also a little questionable at the low power range, so its not just US planes that are hard done by,

I think its safer to say that SOME planes need a bit of tweakage and its not related to the country they are from.

AKA_TAGERT
04-22-2007, 08:04 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Hmmm 9% does seem a bit high, I thought it was closer to 5%.
Well it is alot closer to 5% than the 109K-4's 25%! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Its possibly because you used Autopilot, but then again if you also used Autopilot in the F6F and other US plane tests and they were underperfoming then something needs tweaking.
Autopilot is not going to change the IL2 code and make planes fly better or worse. The autopilot util uses the same FM that we have to use, where as there is some question as to what FM DM combinations the AI makes use of. In that someone posted a track file showing the AI was able to fly a ZERO in a very steep dive at a speed that would teer it to bits if a real person tried it. Think of the autopilot as a very anal retentive type of TEST PILOT that flys a perfect test each and every time.


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I dont think all the US planes underperform because the P39 seems to be better in the game than the US and RAF reports suggest it should be, and we have a super late version of hte P38 that I believe climbs very well? But of course this is no excuse for the F6F and P51 to be to slow at climbing or the Bf109 and La5 to be climbing far too fast.
All I know for sure is I don't know for sure! So until a test is done to prove it one way or another who knows?


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
We also have to remember that the FW190A version should turn better and is also a little questionable at the low power range, so its not just US planes that are hard done by,
I hear alot of people talking about turn.. Yet I have yet to see any test to prove it one way or another


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I think its safer to say that SOME planes need a bit of tweakage and its not related to the country they are from.
Agree 100%

JG14_Josf
04-22-2007, 08:48 AM
Well it is alot closer to 5% than the 109K-4's 25%!

The above is not true. The 109K is modeled with two versions and so far only one version is being compared to one WWII document for climb rate (without accurately identifying the German calculations used in that climb rate document).

To further compound errors by comparing another plane (American) to another WWII document (calculated by the Americans or test flown by the American on a particular day under specific REAL flight conditions) to the 109 error is, well, compounding errors.

What happens when an error is compounded? Think in terms of a big massive snow ball rolling down hill. Such a behemoth would be hard to stop. Why bother?

If the idea is to learn more about how accurately the game models the planes relative to something REAL, then, two things must occur.

A. Something REAL must be accurately identified in a universal manner.
B. The GAME must be accurately measured in a universal manner.

Having a utility that runs an auto-pilot (if it works) can standardize GAME testing.

What about the big A?

These ˜discussions' manage to bring to light specific questions over and over again leaving players wondering again and again. Perhaps this thread will be re-written in 6 months?

If the error in the game is to be correctly identified, then, it may be a good idea to find trends (like Kettenhunde shows) where specific anomalies could have a scientific explanation.

Example:

The game increases performance drastically between the following versions of planes:

Spitfire IX @low boost
Spitfire IX @ high boost
P-47D @ low boost
P-47D @ high boost
109K-4 @ low boost
109K-4 @ high boost

When I say drastically I mean to point out that the increase in boost turns the old (low boost) plane into a new (high boost) killer. On-line (or off-line I suppose) the new (high boost) version of the plane can dominate over the old (low boost) version almost as if the game applies a universal performance boost to the entire flight model for that model plane instead of simply increasing power available under conditions where the plane could increase power available (not all conditions).

Perhaps the charts alone won't show the trend in a way that can illuminate something relatively important. That is fine. The players who play the game know what is up.

When the P-47 finally arrived with a flight model that can better match the historical record (during simulated combat) the old versions remain in the game to be examples of whatever they were intended to model (fighter bombers?). It may be true that a higher boost on an engine can, in reality, turn a fighter bomber into a fighter plane. Seeing it on paper may help illuminate how that is true – or not.