PDA

View Full Version : Wild Glide



Takata_
06-28-2005, 03:26 PM
'How the plane fly you want to know, engine first you must stop'- Master Yoda

145 GLIDE TESTs - Crimean map, 12h
wind/turbulences turned off
Alt : 1000 m
Speed : 240 km/h mission setting (=~ 244 km/h TAS mission starting)
fuel: 0%
ammo: empty

Distance is mesured from starting point to crash point; average speed (TAS) is calculated from linear distance and flight time; propeller 0% or feathered; radiator closed; plane trimmed.
error margin =~ 1% (100m / 10 km).

1st col. = distance covered
2nd col. = glide duration
3rd col. = average speed (TAS)
4th col. = gliding plane
<hr class="ev_code_hr" />
Ranking:

<LI>16.89 km --- 4 mn 06 sec --- 247 km/h --- P-38J
<LI>16.14 km --- 3 mn 48 sec --- 255 km/h --- P-38L.Late
<LI>16.00 km --- 3 mn 54 sec --- 246 km/h --- P-38L
<LI>13.52 km --- 5 mn 59 sec --- 136 km/h --- Gladiator.J8A
<LI>13.11 km --- 4 mn 10 sec --- 189 km/h --- P-40E
<LI>12.99 km --- 4 mn 05 sec --- 191 km/h --- P-40C
<LI>12.97 km --- 4 mn 07 sec --- 189 km/h --- P-40B
<LI>12.95 km --- 4 mn 18 sec --- 181 km/h --- Tomahawk.Mk.IIa
<LI>12.95 km --- 4 mn 05 sec --- 190 km/h --- Hawk-81A-2
<LI>12.95 km --- 3 mn 32 sec --- 220 km/h --- Corsair.Mk.II
<LI>12.90 km --- 4 mn 14 sec --- 184 km/h --- Tomahawk.Mk.IIb
<LI>12.90 km --- 3 mn 36 sec --- 215 km/h --- Corsair.Mk.I
<LI>12.87 km --- 3 mn 32 sec --- 219 km/h --- F4U-1C
<LI>12.79 km --- 3 mn 26 sec --- 224 km/h --- F4U-1D
<LI>12.75 km --- 3 mn 32 sec --- 217 km/h --- Corsair.Mk.IV
<LI>12.70 km --- 3 mn 22 sec --- 223 km/h --- F4U-1A
<LI>12.63 km --- 3 mn 10 sec --- 239 km/h --- Bf-110G-2
<LI>12.50 km --- 4 mn 07 sec --- 182 km/h --- P-40E.M-105
<LI>12.44 km --- 3 mn 32 sec --- 209 km/h --- F6F-3
<LI>12.43 km --- 3 mn 29 sec --- 214 km/h --- F6F-5
<LI>12.38 km --- 3 mn 26 sec --- 216 km/h --- Ki-84.Ia
<LI>12.15 km --- 3 mn 20 sec --- 219 km/h --- Ki-84.Ic
<LI>11.98 km --- 3 mn 37 sec --- 199 km/h --- P-40M
<LI>11.92 km --- 3 mn 11 sec --- 225 km/h --- Ki-84.Ib
<LI>11.80 km --- 3 mn 20 sec --- 212 km/h --- P-47D-27
<LI>11.77 km --- 3 mn 09 sec --- 224 km/h --- Bf-109F-2
<LI>11.71 km --- 3 mn 17 sec --- 214 km/h --- P-47D-22
<LI>11.66 km --- 3 mn 04 sec --- 228 km/h --- Bf-109F-4
<LI>11.63 km --- 3 mn 18 sec --- 211 km/h --- FM2
<LI>11.61 km --- 3 mn 08 sec --- 222 km/h --- P-47D-10
<LI>11.38 km --- 3 mn 20 sec --- 205 km/h --- F4F-4
<LI>11.34 km --- 3 mn 15 sec --- 209 km/h --- F4F-3
<LI>11.34 km --- 3 mn 14 sec --- 210 km/h --- P-63C
<LI>11.26 km --- 3 mn 03 sec --- 221 km/h --- Fw-190D-9
<LI>11.23 km --- 3 mn 04 sec --- 220 km/h --- Fw-190D-9.Late
<LI>11.21 km --- 3 mn 09 sec --- 214 km/h --- Ta-152H-1
<LI>11.17 km --- 3 mn 33 sec --- 189 km/h --- LaGG-3.Serie.66
<LI>11.11 km --- 3 mn 32 sec --- 189 km/h --- MiG-3U
<LI>10.99 km --- 3 mn 26 sec --- 192 km/h --- Yak-9
<LI>10.97 km --- 3 mn 25 sec --- 193 km/h --- P-39Q-10
<LI>10.89 km --- 3 mn 03 sec --- 214 km/h --- Ki-61.I.Ko
<LI>10.88 km --- 3 mn 36 sec --- 181 km/h --- Hurricane.Mk.Ia
<LI>10.85 km --- 3 mn 22 sec --- 193 km/h --- P-39Q-1
<LI>10.84 km --- 3 mn 04 sec --- 212 km/h --- Fw-190A-6
<LI>10.84 km --- 3 mn 04 sec --- 212 km/h --- Fw-190A-4
<LI>10.84 km --- 3 mn 03 sec --- 213 km/h --- Ki-61.I.Otsu
<LI>10.79 km --- 3 mn 15 sec --- 199 km/h --- MiG-3ud
<LI>10.76 km --- 3 mn 22 sec --- 192 km/h --- MiG-3.ShVak
<LI>10.72 km --- 3 mn 29 sec --- 185 km/h --- LaGG-3.Serie.29
<LI>10.71 km --- 3 mn 33 sec --- 181 km/h --- LaGG-3.Serie.35
<LI>10.71 km --- 3 mn 22 sec --- 191 km/h --- LaGG-3-IT
<LI>10.70 km --- 3 mn 06 sec --- 207 km/h --- I-185M-82A
<LI>10.69 km --- 3 mn 15 sec --- 197 km/h --- P-39N
<LI>10.69 km --- 2 mn 57 sec --- 217 km/h --- Fw-190A-5
<LI>10.68 km --- 3 mn 15 sec --- 197 km/h --- P-400
<LI>10.66 km --- 2 mn 53 sec --- 222 km/h --- Bf-109G-6.Late
<LI>10.64 km --- 3 mn 28 sec --- 184 km/h --- LaGG-3.Serie.4
<LI>10.64 km --- 3 mn 14 sec --- 197 km/h --- P-39D-2
<LI>10.64 km --- 3 mn 14 sec --- 197 km/h --- I-185M-71
<LI>10.62 km --- 3 mn 13 sec --- 198 km/h --- P-39D-1
<LI>10.60 km --- 3 mn 25 sec --- 199 km/h --- Yak-9K
<LI>10.60 km --- 3 mn 00 sec --- 212 km/h --- Ki-61.I.Hei
<LI>10.59 km --- 3 mn 47 sec --- 176 km/h --- A6M2-21
<LI>10.59 km --- 3 mn 08 sec --- 203 km/h --- La-7.3xB-20
<LI>10.59 km --- 3 mn 08 sec --- 203 km/h --- La-7
<LI>10.58 km --- 3 mn 03 sec --- 208 km/h --- P-51C
<LI>10.58 km --- 2 mn 55 sec --- 218 km/h --- Mustang.Mk.III
<LI>10.57 km --- 3 mn 06 sec --- 204 km/h --- La-5F
<LI>10.55 km --- 3 mn 11 sec --- 199 km/h --- La-5FN
<LI>10.54 km --- 3 mn 58 sec --- 159 km/h --- Ki-43.Ic
<LI>10.54 km --- 3 mn 00 sec --- 211 km/h --- P-51B
<LI>10.53 km --- 3 mn 10 sec --- 200 km/h --- Yak-9D
<LI>10.52 km --- 3 mn 08 sec --- 201 km/h --- MiG-3.Ubs
<LI>10.52 km --- 2 mn 52 sec --- 220 km/h --- Bf-109G-6
<LI>10.51 km --- 3 mn 29 sec --- 181 km/h --- La-5
<LI>10.51 km --- 2 mn 52 sec --- 220 km/h --- Fw-190F-8
<LI>10.49 km --- 3 mn 47 sec --- 166 km/h --- A6M2
<LI>10.49 km --- 2 mn 56 sec --- 215 km/h --- P-51D-5NT
<LI>10.49 km --- 2 mn 53 sec --- 218 km/h --- P-51D-20NA
<LI>10.48 km --- 3 mn 15 sec --- 193 km/h --- MiG-3AM-38
<LI>10.45 km --- 3 mn 09 sec --- 199 km/h --- MiG-3
<LI>10.45 km --- 2 mn 51 sec --- 220 km/h --- Bf-109G-6AS
<LI>10.44 km --- 3 mn 10 sec --- 198 km/h --- Yak-9B
<LI>10.44 km --- 2 mn 52 sec --- 219 km/h --- Fw-190A-9
<LI>10.44 km --- 2 mn 47 sec --- 225 km/h --- Bf-109G-14
<LI>10.43 km --- 3 mn 45 sec --- 167 km/h --- A6M5b
<LI>10.43 km --- 3 mn 36 sec --- 174 km/h --- Siptfire.Mk.Vb.CLP
<LI>10.43 km --- 3 mn 30 sec --- 179 km/h --- A6M5
<LI>10.43 km --- 3 mn 11 sec --- 197 km/h --- Yak-1b
<LI>10.43 km --- 2 mn 52 sec --- 218 km/h --- Fw-190A-8
<LI>10.42 km --- 3 mn 36 sec --- 174 km/h --- A6M5a
<LI>10.42 km --- 3 mn 36 sec --- 174 km/h --- A6M3
<LI>10.40 km --- 3 mn 36 sec --- 173 km/h --- P.11c
<LI>10.38 km --- 3 mn 14 sec --- 193 km/h --- Hurricane.Mk.IIb Mod
<LI>10.37 km --- 3 mn 33 sec --- 175 km/h --- Siptfire.Mk.Vc.(2)
<LI>10.37 km --- 3 mn 25 sec --- 182 km/h --- A6M7-62
<LI>10.34 km --- 3 mn 26 sec --- 181 km/h --- Siptfire.Mk.Vc.(4)
<LI>10.33 km --- 3 mn 30 sec --- 177 km/h --- A6M7-63
<LI>10.31 km --- 3 mn 39 sec --- 169 km/h --- Ki-43.Ia
<LI>10.31 km --- 3 mn 04 sec --- 202 km/h --- Yak-9M
<LI>10.30 km --- 3 mn 33 sec --- 174 km/h --- Siptfire.Mk.Vb
<LI>10.30 km --- 3 mn 13 sec --- 192 km/h --- A6M5c
<LI>10.30 km --- 2 mn 53 sec --- 214 km/h --- Bf-109G-2
<LI>10.29 km --- 3 mn 06 sec --- 199 km/h --- Yak-9T
<LI>10.27 km --- 3 mn 06 sec --- 199 km/h --- Yak-7A
<LI>10.26 km --- 3 mn 46 sec --- 163 km/h --- Ki-43.Ib
<LI>10.19 km --- 3 mn 04 sec --- 199 km/h --- Yak-1
<LI>10.12 km --- 2 mn 48 sec --- 217 km/h --- Bf-109G-10
<LI>10.10 km --- 3 mn 21 sec --- 181 km/h --- Siptfire.LF.Mk.Vb
<LI>10.09 km --- 3 mn 24 sec --- 178 km/h --- Siptfire.Mk.VIII
<LI>10.08 km --- 3 mn 24 sec --- 178 km/h --- Siptfire.LF.Mk.Vb.CLP
<LI>10.08 km --- 2 mn 38 sec --- 230 km/h --- Bf-109K-4
<LI>10.06 km --- 3 mn 20 sec --- 181 km/h --- Siptfire.Mk.IXe
<LI>10.04 km --- 3 mn 06 sec --- 194 km/h --- Hurricane.Mk.IIb
<LI>10.03 km --- 2 mn 57 sec --- 204 km/h --- Ki-100.I.Ko
<LI>10.02 km --- 3 mn 14 sec --- 186 km/h --- Yak-3
<LI>09.99 km --- 3 mn 18 sec --- 182 km/h --- Siptfire.Mk.IXc
<LI>09.97 km --- 3 mn 24 sec --- 176 km/h --- Siptfire.Mk.IXc.CLP
<LI>09.96 km --- 3 mn 17 sec --- 182 km/h --- Siptfire.Mk.VIII.CLP
<LI>09.94 km --- 3 mn 08 sec --- 190 km/h --- Yak-3P
<LI>09.94 km --- 3 mn 04 sec --- 194 km/h --- Hurricane.Mk.IIc
<LI>09.94 km --- 2 mn 57 sec --- 202 km/h --- Yak-7B
<LI>09.92 km --- 3 mn 17 sec --- 181 km/h --- Siptfire.Mk.IXe.CLP
<LI>09.91 km --- 3 mn 24 sec --- 175 km/h --- Siptfire.HF.Mk.IXe
<LI>09.87 km --- 3 mn 21 sec --- 177 km/h --- Seafire.Mk.III
<LI>09.86 km --- 3 mn 13 sec --- 184 km/h --- Seafire.F.Mk.III
<LI>09.78 km --- 2 mn 53 sec --- 203 km/h --- F2A-2
<LI>09.65 km --- 2 mn 40 sec --- 207 km/h --- Bf-109E-7Z
<LI>09.44 km --- 2 mn 53 sec --- 196 km/h --- Buffalo.Mk.I
<LI>09.21 km --- 2 mn 40 sec --- 207 km/h --- Bf-109E-4
<LI>09.17 km --- 2 mn 36 sec --- 212 km/h --- Bf-109E-7
<LI>09.12 km --- 3 mn 47 sec --- 145 km/h --- A6M2-N
<LI>09.08 km --- 2 mn 51 sec --- 191 km/h --- Brewster.B-239
<LI>09.06 km --- 2 mn 45 sec --- 198 km/h --- Yak-9U
<LI>09.04 km --- 2 mn 31 sec --- 216 km/h --- Yak-9UT
<LI>09.02 km --- 2 mn 27 sec --- 221 km/h --- Bf-109E-4B
<LI>08.61 km --- 2 mn 38 sec --- 196 km/h --- I.A.R.80
<LI>08.58 km --- 3 mn 00 sec --- 172 km/h --- Fiat.G.50
<LI>08.53 km --- 2 mn 32 sec --- 202 km/h --- I.A.R.81c
<LI>08.48 km --- 2 mn 34 sec --- 198 km/h --- I.A.R.81a
<LI>08.25 km --- 3 mn 24 sec --- 146 km/h --- I-153M-62
<LI>08.23 km --- 3 mn 22 sec --- 147 km/h --- I-153P
<LI>08.08 km --- 3 mn 18 sec --- 147 km/h --- Fiat.Cr.42
<LI>07.47 km --- 2 mn 31 sec --- 178 km/h --- I-16.Type.24
<LI>07.40 km --- 2 mn 42 sec --- 164 km/h --- I-16.Type.18

<hr class="ev_code_hr" />
I would like to make another table with plane's wingloading, but I need any reliable data for each plane_empty_weight.
If any of you is able to provide me some data, it would be great.

Takata.
(edit: to correct test speed in mission settings to 240 km/h)

Takata_
06-28-2005, 03:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">'How the plane fly you want to know, engine first you must stop'- Master Yoda </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

145 GLIDE TESTs - Crimean map, 12h
wind/turbulences turned off
Alt : 1000 m
Speed : 240 km/h mission setting (=~ 244 km/h TAS mission starting)
fuel: 0%
ammo: empty

Distance is mesured from starting point to crash point; average speed (TAS) is calculated from linear distance and flight time; propeller 0% or feathered; radiator closed; plane trimmed.
error margin =~ 1% (100m / 10 km).

1st col. = distance covered
2nd col. = glide duration
3rd col. = average speed (TAS)
4th col. = gliding plane
<hr class="ev_code_hr" />
Ranking:

<LI>16.89 km --- 4 mn 06 sec --- 247 km/h --- P-38J
<LI>16.14 km --- 3 mn 48 sec --- 255 km/h --- P-38L.Late
<LI>16.00 km --- 3 mn 54 sec --- 246 km/h --- P-38L
<LI>13.52 km --- 5 mn 59 sec --- 136 km/h --- Gladiator.J8A
<LI>13.11 km --- 4 mn 10 sec --- 189 km/h --- P-40E
<LI>12.99 km --- 4 mn 05 sec --- 191 km/h --- P-40C
<LI>12.97 km --- 4 mn 07 sec --- 189 km/h --- P-40B
<LI>12.95 km --- 4 mn 18 sec --- 181 km/h --- Tomahawk.Mk.IIa
<LI>12.95 km --- 4 mn 05 sec --- 190 km/h --- Hawk-81A-2
<LI>12.95 km --- 3 mn 32 sec --- 220 km/h --- Corsair.Mk.II
<LI>12.90 km --- 4 mn 14 sec --- 184 km/h --- Tomahawk.Mk.IIb
<LI>12.90 km --- 3 mn 36 sec --- 215 km/h --- Corsair.Mk.I
<LI>12.87 km --- 3 mn 32 sec --- 219 km/h --- F4U-1C
<LI>12.79 km --- 3 mn 26 sec --- 224 km/h --- F4U-1D
<LI>12.75 km --- 3 mn 32 sec --- 217 km/h --- Corsair.Mk.IV
<LI>12.70 km --- 3 mn 22 sec --- 223 km/h --- F4U-1A
<LI>12.63 km --- 3 mn 10 sec --- 239 km/h --- Bf-110G-2
<LI>12.50 km --- 4 mn 07 sec --- 182 km/h --- P-40E.M-105
<LI>12.44 km --- 3 mn 32 sec --- 209 km/h --- F6F-3
<LI>12.43 km --- 3 mn 29 sec --- 214 km/h --- F6F-5
<LI>12.38 km --- 3 mn 26 sec --- 216 km/h --- Ki-84.Ia
<LI>12.15 km --- 3 mn 20 sec --- 219 km/h --- Ki-84.Ic
<LI>11.98 km --- 3 mn 37 sec --- 199 km/h --- P-40M
<LI>11.92 km --- 3 mn 11 sec --- 225 km/h --- Ki-84.Ib
<LI>11.80 km --- 3 mn 20 sec --- 212 km/h --- P-47D-27
<LI>11.77 km --- 3 mn 09 sec --- 224 km/h --- Bf-109F-2
<LI>11.71 km --- 3 mn 17 sec --- 214 km/h --- P-47D-22
<LI>11.66 km --- 3 mn 04 sec --- 228 km/h --- Bf-109F-4
<LI>11.63 km --- 3 mn 18 sec --- 211 km/h --- FM2
<LI>11.61 km --- 3 mn 08 sec --- 222 km/h --- P-47D-10
<LI>11.38 km --- 3 mn 20 sec --- 205 km/h --- F4F-4
<LI>11.34 km --- 3 mn 15 sec --- 209 km/h --- F4F-3
<LI>11.34 km --- 3 mn 14 sec --- 210 km/h --- P-63C
<LI>11.26 km --- 3 mn 03 sec --- 221 km/h --- Fw-190D-9
<LI>11.23 km --- 3 mn 04 sec --- 220 km/h --- Fw-190D-9.Late
<LI>11.21 km --- 3 mn 09 sec --- 214 km/h --- Ta-152H-1
<LI>11.17 km --- 3 mn 33 sec --- 189 km/h --- LaGG-3.Serie.66
<LI>11.11 km --- 3 mn 32 sec --- 189 km/h --- MiG-3U
<LI>10.99 km --- 3 mn 26 sec --- 192 km/h --- Yak-9
<LI>10.97 km --- 3 mn 25 sec --- 193 km/h --- P-39Q-10
<LI>10.89 km --- 3 mn 03 sec --- 214 km/h --- Ki-61.I.Ko
<LI>10.88 km --- 3 mn 36 sec --- 181 km/h --- Hurricane.Mk.Ia
<LI>10.85 km --- 3 mn 22 sec --- 193 km/h --- P-39Q-1
<LI>10.84 km --- 3 mn 04 sec --- 212 km/h --- Fw-190A-6
<LI>10.84 km --- 3 mn 04 sec --- 212 km/h --- Fw-190A-4
<LI>10.84 km --- 3 mn 03 sec --- 213 km/h --- Ki-61.I.Otsu
<LI>10.79 km --- 3 mn 15 sec --- 199 km/h --- MiG-3ud
<LI>10.76 km --- 3 mn 22 sec --- 192 km/h --- MiG-3.ShVak
<LI>10.72 km --- 3 mn 29 sec --- 185 km/h --- LaGG-3.Serie.29
<LI>10.71 km --- 3 mn 33 sec --- 181 km/h --- LaGG-3.Serie.35
<LI>10.71 km --- 3 mn 22 sec --- 191 km/h --- LaGG-3-IT
<LI>10.70 km --- 3 mn 06 sec --- 207 km/h --- I-185M-82A
<LI>10.69 km --- 3 mn 15 sec --- 197 km/h --- P-39N
<LI>10.69 km --- 2 mn 57 sec --- 217 km/h --- Fw-190A-5
<LI>10.68 km --- 3 mn 15 sec --- 197 km/h --- P-400
<LI>10.66 km --- 2 mn 53 sec --- 222 km/h --- Bf-109G-6.Late
<LI>10.64 km --- 3 mn 28 sec --- 184 km/h --- LaGG-3.Serie.4
<LI>10.64 km --- 3 mn 14 sec --- 197 km/h --- P-39D-2
<LI>10.64 km --- 3 mn 14 sec --- 197 km/h --- I-185M-71
<LI>10.62 km --- 3 mn 13 sec --- 198 km/h --- P-39D-1
<LI>10.60 km --- 3 mn 25 sec --- 199 km/h --- Yak-9K
<LI>10.60 km --- 3 mn 00 sec --- 212 km/h --- Ki-61.I.Hei
<LI>10.59 km --- 3 mn 47 sec --- 176 km/h --- A6M2-21
<LI>10.59 km --- 3 mn 08 sec --- 203 km/h --- La-7.3xB-20
<LI>10.59 km --- 3 mn 08 sec --- 203 km/h --- La-7
<LI>10.58 km --- 3 mn 03 sec --- 208 km/h --- P-51C
<LI>10.58 km --- 2 mn 55 sec --- 218 km/h --- Mustang.Mk.III
<LI>10.57 km --- 3 mn 06 sec --- 204 km/h --- La-5F
<LI>10.55 km --- 3 mn 11 sec --- 199 km/h --- La-5FN
<LI>10.54 km --- 3 mn 58 sec --- 159 km/h --- Ki-43.Ic
<LI>10.54 km --- 3 mn 00 sec --- 211 km/h --- P-51B
<LI>10.53 km --- 3 mn 10 sec --- 200 km/h --- Yak-9D
<LI>10.52 km --- 3 mn 08 sec --- 201 km/h --- MiG-3.Ubs
<LI>10.52 km --- 2 mn 52 sec --- 220 km/h --- Bf-109G-6
<LI>10.51 km --- 3 mn 29 sec --- 181 km/h --- La-5
<LI>10.51 km --- 2 mn 52 sec --- 220 km/h --- Fw-190F-8
<LI>10.49 km --- 3 mn 47 sec --- 166 km/h --- A6M2
<LI>10.49 km --- 2 mn 56 sec --- 215 km/h --- P-51D-5NT
<LI>10.49 km --- 2 mn 53 sec --- 218 km/h --- P-51D-20NA
<LI>10.48 km --- 3 mn 15 sec --- 193 km/h --- MiG-3AM-38
<LI>10.45 km --- 3 mn 09 sec --- 199 km/h --- MiG-3
<LI>10.45 km --- 2 mn 51 sec --- 220 km/h --- Bf-109G-6AS
<LI>10.44 km --- 3 mn 10 sec --- 198 km/h --- Yak-9B
<LI>10.44 km --- 2 mn 52 sec --- 219 km/h --- Fw-190A-9
<LI>10.44 km --- 2 mn 47 sec --- 225 km/h --- Bf-109G-14
<LI>10.43 km --- 3 mn 45 sec --- 167 km/h --- A6M5b
<LI>10.43 km --- 3 mn 36 sec --- 174 km/h --- Siptfire.Mk.Vb.CLP
<LI>10.43 km --- 3 mn 30 sec --- 179 km/h --- A6M5
<LI>10.43 km --- 3 mn 11 sec --- 197 km/h --- Yak-1b
<LI>10.43 km --- 2 mn 52 sec --- 218 km/h --- Fw-190A-8
<LI>10.42 km --- 3 mn 36 sec --- 174 km/h --- A6M5a
<LI>10.42 km --- 3 mn 36 sec --- 174 km/h --- A6M3
<LI>10.40 km --- 3 mn 36 sec --- 173 km/h --- P.11c
<LI>10.38 km --- 3 mn 14 sec --- 193 km/h --- Hurricane.Mk.IIb Mod
<LI>10.37 km --- 3 mn 33 sec --- 175 km/h --- Siptfire.Mk.Vc.(2)
<LI>10.37 km --- 3 mn 25 sec --- 182 km/h --- A6M7-62
<LI>10.34 km --- 3 mn 26 sec --- 181 km/h --- Siptfire.Mk.Vc.(4)
<LI>10.33 km --- 3 mn 30 sec --- 177 km/h --- A6M7-63
<LI>10.31 km --- 3 mn 39 sec --- 169 km/h --- Ki-43.Ia
<LI>10.31 km --- 3 mn 04 sec --- 202 km/h --- Yak-9M
<LI>10.30 km --- 3 mn 33 sec --- 174 km/h --- Siptfire.Mk.Vb
<LI>10.30 km --- 3 mn 13 sec --- 192 km/h --- A6M5c
<LI>10.30 km --- 2 mn 53 sec --- 214 km/h --- Bf-109G-2
<LI>10.29 km --- 3 mn 06 sec --- 199 km/h --- Yak-9T
<LI>10.27 km --- 3 mn 06 sec --- 199 km/h --- Yak-7A
<LI>10.26 km --- 3 mn 46 sec --- 163 km/h --- Ki-43.Ib
<LI>10.19 km --- 3 mn 04 sec --- 199 km/h --- Yak-1
<LI>10.12 km --- 2 mn 48 sec --- 217 km/h --- Bf-109G-10
<LI>10.10 km --- 3 mn 21 sec --- 181 km/h --- Siptfire.LF.Mk.Vb
<LI>10.09 km --- 3 mn 24 sec --- 178 km/h --- Siptfire.Mk.VIII
<LI>10.08 km --- 3 mn 24 sec --- 178 km/h --- Siptfire.LF.Mk.Vb.CLP
<LI>10.08 km --- 2 mn 38 sec --- 230 km/h --- Bf-109K-4
<LI>10.06 km --- 3 mn 20 sec --- 181 km/h --- Siptfire.Mk.IXe
<LI>10.04 km --- 3 mn 06 sec --- 194 km/h --- Hurricane.Mk.IIb
<LI>10.03 km --- 2 mn 57 sec --- 204 km/h --- Ki-100.I.Ko
<LI>10.02 km --- 3 mn 14 sec --- 186 km/h --- Yak-3
<LI>09.99 km --- 3 mn 18 sec --- 182 km/h --- Siptfire.Mk.IXc
<LI>09.97 km --- 3 mn 24 sec --- 176 km/h --- Siptfire.Mk.IXc.CLP
<LI>09.96 km --- 3 mn 17 sec --- 182 km/h --- Siptfire.Mk.VIII.CLP
<LI>09.94 km --- 3 mn 08 sec --- 190 km/h --- Yak-3P
<LI>09.94 km --- 3 mn 04 sec --- 194 km/h --- Hurricane.Mk.IIc
<LI>09.94 km --- 2 mn 57 sec --- 202 km/h --- Yak-7B
<LI>09.92 km --- 3 mn 17 sec --- 181 km/h --- Siptfire.Mk.IXe.CLP
<LI>09.91 km --- 3 mn 24 sec --- 175 km/h --- Siptfire.HF.Mk.IXe
<LI>09.87 km --- 3 mn 21 sec --- 177 km/h --- Seafire.Mk.III
<LI>09.86 km --- 3 mn 13 sec --- 184 km/h --- Seafire.F.Mk.III
<LI>09.78 km --- 2 mn 53 sec --- 203 km/h --- F2A-2
<LI>09.65 km --- 2 mn 40 sec --- 207 km/h --- Bf-109E-7Z
<LI>09.44 km --- 2 mn 53 sec --- 196 km/h --- Buffalo.Mk.I
<LI>09.21 km --- 2 mn 40 sec --- 207 km/h --- Bf-109E-4
<LI>09.17 km --- 2 mn 36 sec --- 212 km/h --- Bf-109E-7
<LI>09.12 km --- 3 mn 47 sec --- 145 km/h --- A6M2-N
<LI>09.08 km --- 2 mn 51 sec --- 191 km/h --- Brewster.B-239
<LI>09.06 km --- 2 mn 45 sec --- 198 km/h --- Yak-9U
<LI>09.04 km --- 2 mn 31 sec --- 216 km/h --- Yak-9UT
<LI>09.02 km --- 2 mn 27 sec --- 221 km/h --- Bf-109E-4B
<LI>08.61 km --- 2 mn 38 sec --- 196 km/h --- I.A.R.80
<LI>08.58 km --- 3 mn 00 sec --- 172 km/h --- Fiat.G.50
<LI>08.53 km --- 2 mn 32 sec --- 202 km/h --- I.A.R.81c
<LI>08.48 km --- 2 mn 34 sec --- 198 km/h --- I.A.R.81a
<LI>08.25 km --- 3 mn 24 sec --- 146 km/h --- I-153M-62
<LI>08.23 km --- 3 mn 22 sec --- 147 km/h --- I-153P
<LI>08.08 km --- 3 mn 18 sec --- 147 km/h --- Fiat.Cr.42
<LI>07.47 km --- 2 mn 31 sec --- 178 km/h --- I-16.Type.24
<LI>07.40 km --- 2 mn 42 sec --- 164 km/h --- I-16.Type.18

<hr class="ev_code_hr" />
I would like to make another table with plane's wingloading, but I need any reliable data for each plane_empty_weight.
If any of you is able to provide me some data, it would be great.

Takata.
(edit: to correct test speed in mission settings to 240 km/h)

FritzGryphon
06-28-2005, 05:52 PM
Nice test! Comprehensive http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Good to know how far one can glide.

I don't know what you hope to find comparing wing loading, though. At a glance, there doesn't seem to be any correlation. For example, best glider is P-38, followed by Gladiator.

Takata_
06-28-2005, 07:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
I don't know what you hope to find comparing wing loading, though. At a glance, there doesn't seem to be any correlation. For example, best glider is P-38, followed by Gladiator. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe it's not obvious at the first look, but it's part of the equation. If you compare two planes from the same family with same wing area, same wing aspect ratio, it's almost the same plane whith a different weight. The heavier will have a faster gliding speed and at some point, the gliding distance will be reduced too.
For example, if you look at P-40s', the heaviest is the P-40M and she's gliding 1 km shorter but 10 km/h faster than the light P-40s', and this reflect the higher wingloading.

The wing area for both P-38 and Gladiator is about ~30 m‚¬≤ wilch is twice the 15,5 m‚¬≤ of I-16 wing area. The huge difference in weight between P-38 and Gladiator is shown by the difference in gliding speed wilch is for P-38 almost twice the Gladiator's one.

Gibbage1
06-28-2005, 08:06 PM
Finally, something I can claim the P-38 is #1 at http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

dk91
06-28-2005, 08:49 PM
lol

i thought in something like this the Ta would be at the top

bet it took a long time gettin that data thnx for sharin http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

RogueSnake79
06-28-2005, 08:53 PM
Thx for taking to time to make that chart m8. That must have tak'n forever.

Very interesting how they rank ~S

VW-IceFire
06-28-2005, 10:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dk91:
lol

i thought in something like this the Ta would be at the top

bet it took a long time gettin that data thnx for sharin http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Don't let those long wings fool you. They are still loaded quite a bit and still designed like normal FW wings which are optimized for high speeds.

The long wings just give more manuvering power at high altitudes. The Spitfire and P-47 have similar attributes which is why they are so good up there.

TAGERT.
06-28-2005, 11:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Finally, something I can claim the P-38 is #1 at http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>ROTFL!

Kocur_
06-29-2005, 05:27 AM
Takata_! That is great! My respect for taking your time! Also for the idea: so simple and of such a great worth!

Im not sure if there is any knowledge among community on how things are modelled in the game, but until now i imagined it as set of equations common for each plane with constants which define environment and variables for parameters of each particular plane. In my imaginary modelling everything would be determined by common for each plane ''virtual phisics'' and limited number of individual parameters. Looking at Takata‚‚ā¨ôs table i see my thinking was not correct.

Take a look at P-51C and Mustang Mk.III. Both are identical in their aerodynamical properties. Even the canopy is the same since in the game P-51C has malcom hood by default. The only difference between them are changes in engine, Mustang Mk.III has higher boost, which makes it considerably faster than P-51C. In such a gliding test, both should achieve identical performance. But in Takata‚‚ā¨ôs test we see that Mustang Mk.III is faster than P-51C by considerably large margin of 10kmh. What i think now is that planes are modelled completely individually. And without relation to any kind of replicated ‚‚ā¨Ňďvirtual environment‚‚ā¨¬Ě. Correct me if im wrong but if there was a relation to environment both of that planes would glide at the same speed. Difference in speed could possibly be seen only with engines working. As it seems after Takata‚‚ā¨ôs test, speed is somehow incorporated into each planes model.
Other aerodynamical parameters too! Take look at Bf-109 G6 and G2. The G6 was a little bit heavier, having a pair of MG-131 instead of lighter MG-17, plus it had a little bit worsened aerodynamics by adding bulges covering those mg‚‚ā¨ôs. Everthing else was identical for both AFAIK, especially wings were the same. Thus in gliding test their performance should be close to identical. But in Takata‚‚ā¨ôs test the distance covered is considerably larger for heavier and aerodynamically spoiled G6!

Above is what came up to me after a brief look. I think more surprising relations between planes gliding performance will be found in The Takata‚‚ā¨ôs Table http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
I bow my head before Master Yoda‚‚ā¨ôs wisedom!

Takata_
06-29-2005, 08:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
(...)Mustang Mk.III has higher boost, which makes it considerably faster than P-51C. In such a gliding test, both should achieve identical performance. But in Takata‚‚ā¨ôs test we see that Mustang Mk.III is faster than P-51C by considerably large margin of 10kmh.(...) Correct me if im wrong but if there was a relation to environment both of that planes would glide at the same speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
S~! Kocur
Thank you for all the good words, but I think we have to be carefull at the moment before making any obvious conclusion from the raw test data. I fully agree with you that this test should help us to understand a few parameters about the physics modeled in the sim, but at the moment, I just don't know exactly what.

About the gliding speed, you have to remember that this data is calculated from one point to another one. If one plane is not gliding straight to the final crash point, the zigzag will induce an error in the final speed. Having the plane trimmed to fly straight was not an easy task, especially when some of them are affected by what I figured to be the 'Honky-Tonk factor' when engine stop and the wing drop and the plane roll badly from one side to the other one.

I have tested each plane 3-4 glides for one record, but sometime I needed 10-12 glides to achieve the best distance or to confirm it. When one plane's range was not close enough to other Mark's range, I tried it several times until I was sure it could not reach the expected range, and most of the time, the gliding speed changed accordingly.

This method is fully empirical, and from my point of view, the most accurate data is the gliding distance and not the calculated speed, because some of the planes are able to reach the maximum distance at different speed, and 10 km/h is about the limit.

So, remember I focused on the maximum distance first, then on the speed. On the other hand, when the test shows for one plane, in relation to other plane's mark, a change in both the distance and the speed, it means something and you are correct. One factor is a change in the plane weight related to other marks, because my first observation is that heavier planes are gliding faster and a bit shorter with the same aerodynamics - but of course, there is some exception, and I'm studying the data to find it and to explain it.

Here is an example with the P-40E fully loaded with fuel and ammo vs the empty glide:
<hr class="ev_code_hr" />
P-40E empty vs loaded:

<LI>13.11 km --- 4 mn 10 sec --- 189 km/h --- P-40E (empty)
<LI>12.55 km --- 3 mn 21 sec --- 225 km/h --- P-40E (loaded)
<LI>12.49 km --- 3 mn 20 sec --- 222 km/h --- P-40E (loaded)
<LI>12.56 km --- 3 mn 24 sec --- 222 km/h --- P-40E (loaded)
<LI>12.66 km --- 3 mn 29 sec --- 218 km/h --- P-40E (loaded)
<LI>12.90 km --- 3 mn 41 sec --- 210 km/h --- P-40E (loaded)
<LI>12.72 km --- 3 mn 51 sec --- 198 km/h --- P-40E (loaded)

<hr class="ev_code_hr" />

As you can see, my best glide loaded was only 210 m shorter but 21 km/h faster.

Takata

Willey
06-29-2005, 12:53 PM
LOL that 10 tons plane @1 http://forum.freenet.de/statics/smilies/40052.gif

OK where's the 163? This one should rock, but it's **** -&gt; &lt;8km

Kocur_
06-29-2005, 01:15 PM
S~! Takata!
I didnt realize difficulties you encountered.I thought you've found a way to start the flight with engine stopped already, which would let the tests be so much easier - undisturbed by oscilations. I understand now that was not the case. Even more difficult was the task you undertook! My respect again!
I tried to test alt gained in vertical zoom for a plane heavily and lightly loaded. I wanted to avoid manual control of the pitch, so i assigned joystick throttle to pitch trim and started each flight with it deflected to almost maximum. I guess it is what you did: to assign all axis trimming to "hotas controls" like joystick throttle or mouse roller; when best possible trimming settings were found next flights could be performed with that best possible trimming already set. Like i said i guess you did just that (or something better), or that took trimming all the time on the way?
Fact that the planes of the same type glide at shorter distance and faster when heavier is exactly what one should expect and im very glad that is what you established.

F_vonIzabelin
06-29-2005, 01:18 PM
hmm, but if you set fuel as 0% in FMB, you can start with a stopped engine?

Takata_
06-29-2005, 03:55 PM
Yes, the engine is already stopped, but the propeller is still working, and that's the cause of this 'Honky-Tonk' effect with a good number of plane. Some are affected by a kind of 'residual engine compression' and you may almost lose the control, or drop altitude and speed to keep the plane flying. Try it with a Brewster, I.A.R.80, Yak, Spitfire, Lagg, MiG, P-39, I-16, I-153, Fiat Cr.42, etc... lol. It's a kind of surprise as sometime it's ok, but at other time, it's better to restart the mission... and some plane are never affected by this effect.

Takata

F19_Orheim
06-29-2005, 04:48 PM
J8A Manual (excerpt from it):

Manual (http://f19vs.se/files/J8%20description%20eng%20translation.pdf)

Takata_
06-29-2005, 05:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Orheim:
J8A Manual (excerpt from it) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
S~! and Thank you Orheim for sharing, I already found my empty weight data on it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

This part is interesting:
'normal plan√© speed with extended flaps : 125 km/h; Stabilizer adjustement: plan√© (125-130 km/h) +/- 0‚?'
I know it's about landing, but I have glided (plané) around 120 IAS during the test (without flaps), and no need to trim her as she is on rail - no 'Honky-Tonk' as well.

Takata.

KrasniyYastreb
06-30-2005, 06:56 PM
Takata, I realise it must have taken you about 48 hours of in-game time to do all those tests. I admire your dedication. C'est tellement impressionant!

It is good that the loaded plane flies faster but almost the same distance - that part of the FM seems to be correct. Do you happen to have the wieght numbers for empty and loaded P-40?

Kocur: Is the Mustang Mark III heavier than P-51C? The 10km difference in speed corresponds to about 680lbs in extra weight on the MkIII. As for the Bf.109 G2/G6 example, the difference is 220 meters for gliding range, which is pretty insignificant. I'd givve an error bound of about 500 meters for these tests, unless Takata has some standard deviations recorded... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

But in general, I imagine that all planes in the game obey the same set of equations with just different constants specific to each plane. Of course how exactly its done is probably Oleg's secret and he won't tell http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

I don't see a reason to jump to conclusions just yet.

LStarosta
06-30-2005, 07:33 PM
P.11 is undermodelled.

Takata_
06-30-2005, 10:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KrasniyYastreb:
it must have taken you about 48 hours of in-game time to do all those tests </div></BLOCKQUOTE> much, much more... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It is good that the loaded plane flies faster but almost the same distance - that part of the FM seems to be correct. Do you happen to have the wieght numbers for empty and loaded P-40? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm studying the P-40s' family because it looks like the in-game plane's weight is off for some of them.

- P-40B, Warhawk.Mk.IIa and Hawk.81A2 should weight the same
empty: 2536 kg
loaded: 3282 kg

- P-40C and Warhawk.MK.IIb (protection added to B mark)
empty: 2636 kg (+100 kg)
loaded: 3424 kg

- P-40E - (Russian P-40E field mod with M-105 engine, no data found - Oleg state ~2700 kg empty)
empty: 2880 kg (+336 kg)
loaded: 3756 kg

- P-40M
empty: 2939 kg (+403 kg)
loaded: 3629 kg

Assuming that no significant aerodynamical change has been made between B and M, the gliding distance should reflect this order and P-40E should not be the top glider of the family and be somewhere between P-40E field mod and P-40M.

I'm cross checking my results again, but whatever I'm trying, I can't make any B/C model glide more than my test. I don't know if the 100 kg difference between B and C is noticeable with this test, but it really looks like they have all the same weight.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">. I'd givve an error bound of about 500 meters for these tests, unless Takata has some standard deviations recorded... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No standard deviations is recorded, but I barely never change my heading more than 3 deg for a couple of seconds when plane's trim needs a correction. After 10 km +, the maximum deviation is less than 200 m from the targeted line.

My starting point is 40000 90000

col.1= crash coordinate 1
col.2= crash coordinate 2
col.3= deviation -west 40000 +east
col.4= distance recorded

39921.13 . . 102953.48 . . +78.87 . . 12,954
40027.73 . . 102896.66 . . -27.73 . . 12,897
39886.98 . . 102973.20 . .+113.02 . . 12,974
39949.09 . . 102984.92 . . +50.91 . . 12,985
40201.88 . . 101981.46 . .-201.88 . . 11,983

My estimated error margin is ~100 m because some planes have been tested less than others.

S~!
Takata

Kocur_
06-30-2005, 10:21 PM
KrasniyYastreb! As i wrote above at first i didnt realise how complex and difficult the test was. Knowing that now we must decide if Takata's method was correct or not. Takata wrote he tried a number of times to a achieve similar performance for similar yet not identical planes. And stopped trying after many attempts. I belive that is a very fair method to achieve methologically correct outcome. Yet the method is not perfect since it takes human input. (Just came to my mind: i read somewhere that now AI pilot tries to fly over a forest, they used to try to land on it.)
On P51C and Mustang JMk.III: was the latter haeavier than "original" Mustang? What more was onboard: i mean i just dont know that. Still: this supposed higher weight affected speed only. It did not affect range. That is surprising, dont you think?
On Bf-109 G2/G6: take a look at F4F3/F4, at Fw190 D9/D9 late, at P39Q1/Q10. As im not in case of Mustangs, in case of Bf109 i am sure about dofferencies between G2/G6. I must support my notion, still notion only, that those relations are surprising.

Takata_
06-30-2005, 10:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Yet the method is not perfect since it takes human input. (Just came to my mind: i read somewhere that now AI pilot tries to fly over a forest, they used to try to land on it.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
S~ Kocur,
I tried to set the mission with autopilot, but I can make the planes to glide better myself... at least about the range. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Takata.

Kocur_
07-01-2005, 01:06 AM
Rgrt Takata! Since AI cant achieve best result, manual piloting is methodolically more correct.
Was function of automatic stabilisation any useful in first seconds of a flight?

lrrp22
07-01-2005, 08:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
On P51C and Mustang JMk.III: was the latter haeavier than "original" Mustang? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They should be identical.

Takata_
07-01-2005, 09:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Rgrt Takata! Since AI cant achieve best result, manual piloting is methodolically more correct.
Was function of automatic stabilisation any useful in first seconds of a flight? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Automatic stabilisation is not working with fighters. The main problem with AI is a tendency to dive at mission start and to follow another heading to the closest base (because no fuel) wilch is several degrees off the targeted bearing.
About the accuracy of speed in my table , I realised that the horizontal calculated speed is mostly influenced by any change in gliding speed during the flight. You can reach about the same range with part of the gliding flight at different speeds, and the final average calculated speed is not the same. The distance data is more accurate because I'm focused on heading first.

Takata.

Kocur_
07-01-2005, 10:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Takata_:
Assuming that no significant aerodynamical change has been made between B and M(...)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Im affraid thats not that easy. I looked into a book: D got a new version of Allison V-1710: 45cm shorter and with shaft higher by 20cm. Being forced to redesign everything before cocpit Curtiss redesigned rest too, to make it fit better row engine: all crossections had now smaller area and fuselage become 15 cm shorter. In short: entire fuselage was redesigned to achieve better aerodynamics. Im not sure we can consider P-40B-C/E-M a closest possible family.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Takata_:
About the accuracy of speed in my table(...)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Rgrt! Until further notice (that is results of some new extra-mega-super-hiper-turbo-diesel-uberhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif thorough tests on P-51C/Mustang Mk.III) lets not make any conclusions depending on speed results.
Distances themselves are interesting. I would never guess that Fw-190D9 would be a better glider than Ki-43 Hayabusa/Oscar. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Takata_
07-01-2005, 10:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Im affraid thats not that easy. I looked into a book: D got a new version of Allison V-1710: 45cm shorter and with shaft higher by 20cm. Being forced to redesign everything before cocpit Curtiss redesigned rest too, to make it fit better row engine: all crossections had now smaller area and fuselage become 15 cm shorter. In short: entire fuselage was redesigned to achieve better aerodynamics. Im not sure we can consider P-40B-C/E-M a closest possible family. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Of course, you are right, but let assume there is major and minor differences. Any change in wing or horizontal plan design, like surface area, wing shape, span would be a major aerodynamical change because it will influence the Lift over Drag ratio much more than any fuselage redesign, especialy when the frontal area in barely the same. On the same class, any significant increase of weight will cause a major change as well as the gliding distance is directly related to the weight force.

I've set a new test to cross check my previous results (inside the same family) with, I guess, a better error margin:
I'm starting at 500 m and at 200 km/h (closer to P-40s' best glide speed) in place of previously 1000 m and 240 km/h. I turned off "torque" in settings. The glide is shorter and it's supposed to be more accurate and faster to perform.

I tested both P-40B and Tomahawk.Mk.IIa to find if there is any difference, and the result was obvious:

6,879 m .. 2 mn 15 sec .. 183,5 km/h .. P-40B
6,883 m .. 2 mn 15 sec .. 183,5 km/h .. Tomahawk.Mk.IIa

with a 4 meters difference, and achieving exactly the same average speed (50.96 ms and 50.98 ms) , I don't need to test further and I'm sure they are exactly the same.

Takata.

KrasniyYastreb
07-01-2005, 12:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> On the same class, any significant increase of weight will cause a major change as well as the gliding distance is directly related to the weight force.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, no, no! Guys, the <span class="ev_code_RED">weight affects the gliding speed only!</span> It does <span class="ev_code_RED">not</span> influence the gliding range. The gliding range is a function only of the maximum lift/drag ratio, purely a measure of the aerodynamic quality of the aircraft.

Takata, since you have done your math right and were so meticulous if you say 100m error, then I believe you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

The examples that Kocur points to as being strange don't seem strange to me. P-39Q-1/Q/10 results are right what the should be. WHat is strange is the P-40 results, because the B, C and E versions all had the same speed, whereas B should have been the slowest and E the fastest due to weight differences. This suggests that some of the in-game weights might be off for some of the aircraft.

Unfortunately I don't know enough about most of these aircraft to draw definitive conclusions. The basic laws of physics seem to be followed, but yes there are some inconsistencies. If P-40M had better aerodynamics - should be the best glider. If anything, the gliding ranges are a direct indicator of L/Dmax for each plane.

Kocur_
07-01-2005, 01:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KrasniyYastreb:
The examples that Kocur points to as being strange don't seem strange to me. P-39Q-1/Q/10 results are right what the should be. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh we have a misunderstanding! I find Cobras results right too! Q-10 differed from Q-1 mailnly by not having 12,7 gunpods under wings, thus Q-10 was a bit lighter and caused less drag. Q-10 distance result is a little better than Q-1 which i find right.
I wrote about those Cobras as opposition to Bf-109G2/G6 results! G2 was for G6 what Q-10 was for Q-1, but difference in weight and drag was smaller in 109's case than in Cobras case. Thus difference in distances should be smaller in case of Bf-109G2/G6 than in case of P-39Q-10/Q-1. Whats worse: it is heavier and more draggy G6 that flies further! I see two possible explanations: something disturbed G2/G6 tests or something is wrong in game.

Takata_
07-01-2005, 01:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KrasniyYastreb:
No, no, no! Guys, the <span class="ev_code_RED">weight affects the gliding speed only!</span> It does <span class="ev_code_RED">not</span> influence the gliding range. The gliding range is a function only of the maximum lift/drag ratio, purely a measure of the aerodynamic quality of the aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Takata_
07-01-2005, 01:26 PM
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/Images/glider.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Compared to a powered aircraft, a glider has only three main forces acting on it: lift, drag, and weight. Forces are vector quantities having both a magnitude and a direction. The weight acts through the center of gravity and is always directed towards the center of the earth. The magnitude of the weight is given by the weight equation and depends on the mass of the vehicle plus its payload. The lift and drag are aerodynamic forces and act through the center of pressure. The drag is directed opposite to the flight direction, and the lift is directed perpendicular to the flight direction. There are many factors that influence the magnitude of the lift and drag forces.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/Images/glidvec.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In order for a glider to fly, it must generate lift to oppose its weight. To generate lift, a glider must move through the air. But the motion of a glider through the air also generates drag. In a powered aircraft, the thrust from the engine opposes drag. But a glider has no engine to generate thrust. With the drag unopposed, a glider quickly slows down until it can no longer generate enough lift to oppose the weight.
- So how does a glider generate the velocity needed for flight?
The simple answer is that a glider trades altitude for velocity. It trades the potential energy difference from a higher altitude to a lower altitude to produce kinetic energy, which means velocity. Gliders are always descending relative to the air in which they are flying. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So... with the same aerodynamics and more Weight (higher mass, same g force), the glider will have to generate more Lift to oppose the increased Weight. The only way is to trade more altitude to produce more kinetic energy and will imply a higher Glide Angle, and it means a shorter glide distance.
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/Images/glidang.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If a glider is in a steady (constant velocity and no acceleration) descent, it loses altitude as it travels. The glider's flight path is a simple straight line, shown as the inclined red line in the figure. The flight path intersects the ground at an angle a called the glide angle. If we know the distance flown d and the altitude change h, we can calculate the glide angle using trigonometry:
tan(a) = h / d
where tan is the trigonometric tangent function. The ratio of the change in altitude h to the change in distance d is often called the glide ratio.
If the glider is flown at a specified glide angle, the trigonometric equation can be solved to determine how far the glider can fly for a given change in altitude.
d = h / tan(a)
Notice that if the glide angle is small, the tan(a) is a small number, and the aircraft can fly a long distance for a small change in altitude. Conversely, if the glide is large, the tan(a) is a large number, and the aircraft can travel only a short distance for a given change in altitude. We can think of the glide angle as a measure of the flying efficiency of the glider. On another page, we will show that the glide angle is inversely related to the lift to drag ratio. The higher the lift to drag ratio, The smaller the glide angle, and the farther an aircraft can fly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
At the end, the result will be an higher gliding speed AND a shorter distance, no?
Takata.

Kocur_
07-01-2005, 01:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KrasniyYastreb:
No, no, no! Guys, the <span class="ev_code_RED">weight affects the gliding speed only!</span> It does <span class="ev_code_RED">not</span> influence the gliding range. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Call me pagan but i cant see how more weight could come without a cost at all.

LeVola
07-01-2005, 03:46 PM
Hi!

How many got glider pilot licence?

I have, and now all modern gliders (no trainers) got water ballast tanks in wings.

Why? Because plane will glide same distance but it will fly faster. Very good thing whe you are in race and you want to win.

I asked this from someone smarter than me(long time ago), and he replied that difference in distance is minimal with heavyer plane, but speed can be ~5-15% faster.

Exmp. Glider xxx will glide 1:40 at speed of 100km/h If you fill her tank with water(150kg)
glide ratio will remain nearly the same (~1:39.9)
but speed might be 110km/h.

Btw I think in this game every plane got too good glide ratio.

LeV

Takata_
07-01-2005, 04:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LeVola:
How many got glider pilot licence? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
S~! LeVola,
Personnaly, I never flew a glider.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I have, and now all modern gliders (no trainers) got water ballast tanks in wings.
Why? Because plane will glide same distance but it will fly faster. Very good thing whe you are in race and you want to win. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
- Sure, no doubt increased mass will get you faster, but your statement "will glide the same distance" is not correct. Like you said after, the difference is minimal for a competition glider.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">that difference in distance is minimal with heavyer plane, but speed can be ~5-15% faster.
Exmp. Glider xxx will glide 1:40 at speed of 100km/h If you fill her tank with water(150kg)
glide ratio will remain nearly the same (~1:39.9) - but speed might be 110km/h. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
- Nearly the same is not the same http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Competition gliders are designed in every part to optimise the lift and they are able to climb in warm air pockets, what none of our fighter planes without thrust can do because they are way too heavy. In my previous test with empty P-40E vs fully loaded P-40E, the result was a glide ratio of 1:13.11 (empty) to 1:12.90 (loaded) with 876 kg added. This result only a 0.24 m/kg distance loss, and shows that things are not so badly modeled at this point.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Btw I think in this game every plane got too good glide ratio. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have no clue what those planes should do in RL, but someone stated in another thread an estimated glide ratio of 1:15 from P-51 pilot manual, and I only achieved a 1:10.58 during my test for the best one. If this info is true, maybe they are not too good and are gliding only 70% of the RL figure?
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Takata.

NonWonderDog
07-01-2005, 07:46 PM
Actually, it *should* go exactly the same distance, no matter the weight. In fact, the glide ratio of a plane will always be equal to the lift/drag ratio, which is unaffected by weight.

To achieve best glide you have to fly at the most efficient angle of attack, i.e. the AoA at which L/D is maximized. A heavier plane must fly faster in order to do this, but the lift/drag ratio will still be the same.

Look at the third picture you posted above. If you add weight the plane will fall faster, but it will still follow the same path. You can pretty easily fly it slower or faster than the best glide speed, but you won't go as far.

Takata_
07-01-2005, 10:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
To achieve best glide you have to fly at the most efficient angle of attack, i.e. the AoA at which L/D is maximized. A heavier plane must fly faster in order to do this, but the lift/drag ratio will still be the same. If you add weight the plane will fall faster, but it will still follow the same path. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
In order to the glider to follow the same path with more weight, this would be only possible if the the AoA is not optimum, like you said, the AoA at wich L/D is maximized.

If the L/D is optimum, adding weight with the same AoA will imply that the Weight force won't be opposed by enough Lift, and the velocity will decrease because less Lift. When velocity will decrease, if the glider do not modify his AoA, the glider will stall and fall, and never as far as the maximum range.

In order to oppose enough Lift to more Weight, the glider must reduce his AoA to produce more kinetic energy, trading altitude vs velocity. This change the Gliding angle, the glide path and reduce the gliding distance.

And it's logical, because a powered plane use more thrust (fuel) to carry more Weight thru the same distance, and the only thrust available for a glider is his altitude. If it was not like that, all the planes fully loaded would have the same maximum range than an empty one.

Takata.

NonWonderDog
07-01-2005, 10:16 PM
I've always been horrible at explaining this, so look it up yourself. It might seem logical that adding weight decreases glide ratio, but it doesn't.

I think the problem is that you're assuming that you always start at the same speed. If you must accellerate to glide speed, then yes, you must lose altitude to do so. But once the correct glide speed is establiished, you will have the same glide ratio as if you were at a lesser weight and lower speed. Glide speed changes with weight, but the L/D ratio, and thus the glide ratio, does not.

Since you always start at the same speed in your tests... I hesitate to call your procedure faulty -- it's really the best you can do with the tools you've got -- but it does have its issues.

Takata_
07-01-2005, 10:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
I think the problem is that you're assuming that you always start at the same speed. If you must accellerate to glide speed, then yes, you must lose altitude to do so. But once the correct glide speed is establiished, you will have the same glide ratio as if you were at a lesser weight and lower speed. Glide speed changes with weight, but the L/D ratio, and thus the glide ratio, does not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I can understand your point, but I have to check it closer.
What you say is that the speed difference achieved, related to the increase in weight, is only the result of gravity force (mass.g) and it doesn't result of any altitude deal...
That's what I understand for a falling corps, but not for a flight.
You say that the starting speed is the same in my testing, that's true, but I don't think the velocity is the same for a 10 tons plane at 240 km/h and a 2 tons one at the same speed.
Takata.

Takata_
07-01-2005, 11:01 PM
Assuming your point, Weight would only be an issue when you want to get it up, but never when you want to get it down. That would mean, that it would be theoricaly possible to add an infinity of load to any already flying plane and it won't change his L/D, then his velocity will change accordingly to reach another infinity, but without changing the gliding angle and the maximum distance of flight?

Takata.

NonWonderDog
07-01-2005, 11:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Takata_:
Weight would only be an issue when you want to get it up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I find this strangely amusing. Hee hee. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


The whole "heavier planes fly faster" thing is confusing because it skirts the whole issue of *how* the plane flys at this greater speed. For powered, level flight, the heavier plane must either fly faster or at a greater angle of attack in order for lift to be equal to weight. Flying faster requires more power to overcome parasitic drag, and flying at a greater angle of attack requires more power to overcome induced drag. Either way, we can see that a lighter plane will be more fuel efficient.

There's one big thing that's different in a glide, however. In a glide, drag no longer works against the engine. In a glide, drag works against *gravity.* The amount of drag no longer matters; all that matters is the amount of lift you can get for each pound of drag. This ratio is maximized at a specific angle of attack (which varies per plane). When going for best distance, your only goal is to fly at this angle of attack. A heavier plane will end up going faster in order to generate enough lift to cancel weight, but as long as you maintain the same angle of attack the plane will glide the same distance regardless of weight.

Takata_
07-01-2005, 11:52 PM
Let's make a little exercice:

At 1,000 m, I'm loading my empty 2,880 kg P-40E with 10,000 kg of lead, wilch result a 12,880 kg mass times 0.99975 = 12,876.781 kg launched at 66.67 m/s (240 km/h) with no fuel.

- What would be the glide angle, the distance and the steady gliding speed of the flight, assuming the Lift over Drag ratio is 13/1 for the empty P-40E ?

- glide angle = 90‚?
- distance = 0
- speed = (do it yourself... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif)

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Takata.

Takata_
07-02-2005, 12:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
parasitic drag ... drag works against *gravity.* The amount of drag no longer matters; all that matters is the amount of lift you can get for each pound of drag... your only goal is to fly at this angle of attack... but as long as you maintain the same angle of attack the plane will glide the same distance regardless of weight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
There is no parasit drag issues at slow speed under 200 mph...
The Angle of Attack is related to plane's CoG, related to Weight force, and to L/D who are related to center of pressure wilch is perpendicular to the flow direction...
In glide, Drag is unopposed, that's why the glider slow down and lose altitude to maintain speed. Lift works against Weight wilch include Gravity force...
It's how much pounds of Lift you can get for each pounds of Weight, Drag works unopposed. You can't maintain the same AoA without speed, if the Lift is unsufficient to counter the Weight...

Takata.

Takata_
07-02-2005, 12:39 AM
I'm starting to understand where is the misunderstanding. That's Because L/D is a ratio, and you should have read somewhere that L/D is not related to plane's mass. In fact, that means that a very heavy plane and a very light one may have the same L/D. When both glide, they will be able to perform the same.

Example, take a 200,000 pds plane with a L/D of 20/1 and a 1,000 pds one with the same 20/1 L/D. Both will perform the same in term of glide (same angle, same distance). Because L/D is the same, Weight balance work the same.

Sized models are working like that, one model with the same shape but 1/2 the weight and size will reproduce the performance of the full scale model in term of glide, same angle, same distance. But only because everything is proportionnal.

As soon as you are loading the same plane with different loads, you will change the L/D accordingly to the change in Weight. Here, the relation is assymetrical and you can't reproduce the same glide.

Takata.

NonWonderDog
07-02-2005, 12:56 AM
Lift to drag doesn't change with weight.

L/D = C_L/C_D
or
L/D = C_L/(C_Dp + C_Di)
or
L/D = C_L/(C_Dp + C_L^2/(pi*e*AR))

C_L = coefficient of lift
C_Di = coefficient of induced drag
C_Dp = coefficient of parasitic drag
e = Oswald efficiency factor
AR = aspect ratio

C_Dp depends on the shape of the plane, e and AR depend on the wings. Only C_L is variable, and it depends directly on angle of attack.

L/D is maximized at a specific angle of attack. It doesn't depend on weight, only the amount of lift you need to sustain 1G flight depends on weight. Heavier planes need more lift, and must therefore fly faster if they want to stay at best L/D angle of attack.

Takata_
07-02-2005, 01:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
Lift to drag doesn't change with weight.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Darn, Weight is not what you think, Weight is a vector opposed to L/D. Each time a plane fly, the Weight is affecting everything because the Weight include Gravity. If you think only about the aerodynamical elements of both Lift and Drag and you forgot the gravity, you are flying in another universe. Why the Weight as a vector can't be included inside Lift and Drag is related to the type of forces. The Lift and Drag are forces of friction, contact, and are showing factors related to that. Weight is different, it's a field of Force and nobody in the earth and the whole universe can't get rid of the Weight force.

The Weight is the major component of any flight, and his value is about the same as the Lift one.

NonWonderDog
07-02-2005, 01:13 AM
Weight is a vector with magnitude equal to mass*gravity, no?

The lift to drag ratio does not depend on weight. If the plane weighs more, more lift is required in order for lift to equal weight, i.e. 1G flight. More lift means more drag, as given by the L/D ratio. Simple, no? No obfuscation about it.

The thing is, the absolute amount of drag isn't important to glide distance when you're gliding at 1G. Just L/D.

Takata_
07-02-2005, 01:20 AM
You try to understand a 3-system element, looking at the relations inside only two of them. L/D is not an absolute value only related to the aerodynamical components of both the Lift and Drag forces, because the meaning of the whole system can not be expressed without the third element wilch is Weight. The unit of mesurement for both the Drag and Lift values are what? pressure? degrees? meters? seconds?... or Weight?

Takata.

NonWonderDog
07-02-2005, 01:22 AM
Newtons.

But whatever, I'm going to bed. G'night.

Takata_
07-02-2005, 01:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
The lift to drag ratio does not depend on weight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> No, it doesn't depend, that's just it doesn't mean anything without Weight.

Takata_
07-02-2005, 01:25 AM
and what is Newton or Joule if not mass*g?
and goodnight NonWonder http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Kocur_
07-02-2005, 03:44 AM
Questions:
More lift, which is necessary when there is more weight, requires higher AoA. Is increase of drag caused by higher AoA equal to increase of lift?

KrasniyYastreb wrote:
"10km difference in speed corresponds to about 680lbs in extra weight on the MkIII."
Tell me please what did British put in P-51C Mustangs when received them for such a major increase of weight?

PB0_Roll
07-02-2005, 05:50 AM
practical example (say me if you think it's not related)

you're in a B17 over Channel, 2 engines have quit due to battle damage and the aircraft is descending due to lack of power, you may be short to reach england and don't want to bail over feezing sea.

Should you throw away Guns and every spare material in order to try to reach england or, since heavy or not, plane will glide the same distance, keep everything on board ?

Takata_
07-02-2005, 06:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Questions:
More lift, which is necessary when there is more weight, requires higher AoA. Is increase of drag caused by higher AoA equal to increase of lift? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
There's no simple answer to this question, but to make it simple, the relation between Weight, Lift and Drag is not linear, and vary with many factors.

(edited, confused and tired... lol)

When you increase the AoA and induce some Drag, the speed decrease. Depending of the Weight, you'll be able to gain more or less altitude and keep your energy state higher if the Drag induced is low, or you will stall if you reached the Lift limit. If you stall the wing, there is no gain in altitude, you lose some speed and the energy state is reduced.

Any increase in Weight won't result to any drastic change in Lift/Drag, especially if the mass added is close to the center of gravity of the plane, but may cause a problem if the mass added move the center of gravity from the previous point. If so, the aerodynamics are really changed.

About P-51C and Mustang III, I cross checked my results and I'm sure now they are not the same. Mustang III is possibly lighter or has improved aerodynamics. I will make another run of test to find a better gliding distance for the Mustang III. The difference in glide speed reflect that it should glide better or that I made an error in my test.

The statement of KrasnyYastreb about Mustang IIIs' Weight is based on my calculated speed. It is derivated from the fonction that the best glide speed is directly proportional to the square root of the weight, but this speed, as I already told you, is not accurate enough to derivate such value.

Takata.

Takata_
07-02-2005, 06:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PB0_Roll:
Should you throw away Guns and every spare material in order to try to reach england or, since heavy or not, plane will glide the same distance, keep everything on board ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
S~PBO_Roll,
Of course, your example is related. All those three forces are acting as a system and are fully relatives to each others.
NonWonderdog focused on the aerodynamicals relations used to compute the Lift and Drag values, but just forget that at the end, they are kinetic energy values interacting together. His statement is wonderfull as it demonstrate that antigravity has been discovered in glider's flight! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Takata.

Kocur_
07-02-2005, 06:20 AM
Mustang Mk.III is just British name of P-51C. I asked about historical data on increase of weight, that supposingly could impact gliding speed of in-game Nustang Mk.III. AFAIK only change in equipment (weight) could be British radio set. Was it 300kg heavier than US...?
The only change in aerodynamics that could be between P-51C and Mustang Mk.III, as anything more would take rebuilding the airframe, is that in V-1 chasing units planes were often highly polished. We can only wonder if its modelled, and what impact on aerodynamical efficiency it could have.

Takata_
07-02-2005, 06:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
AFAIK only change in equipment (weight) could be British radio set. Was it 300kg heavier than US...? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
S~Kocur,
Re-read what is written, I found some change, but I guess it's LIGHTER and should glide better than P-51C. Forget about this f***g speed... lol

Kocur_
07-02-2005, 06:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Takata_:
In fact, if you increase the AoA and the previous state was a already a positive AoA, it will not result in more Lift but in less Lift, and depending of the change, more Drag
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I understand that "positive AoA" is equal to "AoA of optimal performance", which BTW AFAIK is around 12-14 deg for most of "classical" airfoils. But i would like to know how things are all the way from 0 deg. to that 12-14 deg. Beyound that is little more than stall.
If we learned that drag increases faster than lift when AoA rises we would have aerodynamical explanation of why weight affects gliding distance.

Kocur_
07-02-2005, 06:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Takata_:
I found some change, but I guess it's LIGHTER and should glide better than P-51C. Forget about this f***g speed... lol </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
I keep returning to P-51C/Mustang Mk.III weight issue because KrasniyYastreb suggested that Mustang Mk.III was heavier thus in Your test should glide faster. My thinking still is that both planes were nearly identical and such should be their gliding...RESULTS http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

ULTIMA_LATET
07-02-2005, 06:46 AM
In real the FW190 does not glide without engine, it falls like a stone into the ground til it crash : )

ULTIMA_LATET
07-02-2005, 07:07 AM
This test only shows how unrealistic and arcadish the FM still is.

Takata_
07-02-2005, 07:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
I understand that "positive AoA" is equal to "AoA of optimal performance"... If we learned that drag increases faster than lift when AoA rises... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
- Angle of Attack is the angle between the chord line and the flight direction. When the plane is flying level, the actual angle of the wing is what I called zero AoA, and it is equal to the value of the angle of the chord line relative to the horizon. (tsss!... lol
- In fact, in this case, Speed drop, Drag is induced and Lift is not increased because the wing stall. (edited, for the same reason than above... lol)
- Mustang III, if there is any difference, from my findings, it's really a small one.

Takata.

Takata_
07-02-2005, 07:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ULTIMA_LATET:
This test only shows how unrealistic and arcadish the FM still is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think this thread is not for you.

ULTIMA_LATET
07-02-2005, 07:26 AM
Well, explain how the FW190 can glide without engine then, because in real it cant do that : )

Takata_
07-02-2005, 07:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ULTIMA_LATET:
Well, explain how the FW190 can glide without engine then, because in real it cant do that : ) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>your point is so well argumented and documented that you can be sure to have me fully convinced about that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif and I'll start another thread, Oleg, you c**p, Ultimalate is much better!

ULTIMA_LATET
07-02-2005, 07:41 AM
Hehe, it is fact that all german FW pilots bailed out when their engines stopped, they didn‚¬īt even try to land it, because without working engine in a FW190 it falls like a stone : )

Kocur_
07-02-2005, 07:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ULTIMA_LATET:
Hehe, it is fact that all german FW pilots bailed out when their engines stopped, they didn‚¬īt even try to land it, because without working engine in a FW190 it falls like a stone : ) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Including those who emergency landed on Fw190 using bent propeller blades as ski?

You may consider yourself AN ULTIMATE_SNAKE, but your knowledge seems to be a little shorter than ultimate.

Takata_
07-02-2005, 07:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
...lol.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>let the troll trolling around http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
I just saw your PM, hopefully you quoted me in previous pages, and nothing is lost... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

ULTIMA_LATET
07-02-2005, 08:01 AM
You mean they emergency landed with dead engine? Propeller was still working or stopped? It is a wellknown fact that FW pilots bailed out when their engines stopped.

Kocur_
07-02-2005, 08:20 AM
Surely Fw190 was a very poor glider, but dont oppose METAPHOR in pilots opinion on it agaist aerodynamical parameters. Even with engine dead, if Fw190 still had wings it could perform gliding at angle high enough to gain enough speed to stay above stall speed. Or you suggest Fw190 was out of regular aerodynamics in the atmosphere of this planet?

KrasniyYastreb
07-02-2005, 10:08 AM
Wow, this thread has really gotten fat since I last checked!

PBO_Roll's B-17 example does not apply here because his B-17 still has 2 engines, so it is powered flight. If all 4 engines were dead, then it would be useless for the crew to throw anything overboard, aside from maybe themselves, as it would not make the plane go any further.

Takata, you are thinking about this qualitatively - if there's more weight, there has to be higher AoA...... But the mathematics holds the only real answer. And the mathematics says that weight is not a factor in gliding range. If you want, I write up a derivation later today - but mathematical formulae typed straight in the text box are unreadable, so I will create a pdf, and since it takes a little bit of work on my part(and i'm very lazy) I'll only do it if there's interest.

By the way, I meant to say about the empty/loaded P-40E results - the gliding speed increase should be 26 km/h, your best speed was only 21km/h, but then again you say your speeds are not really accurate...

Kocur_
07-02-2005, 10:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KrasniyYastreb:
PBO_Roll's B-17 example does not apply here because his B-17 still has 2 engines, so it is powered flight. If all 4 engines were dead, then it would be useless for the crew to throw anything overboard, aside from maybe themselves, as it would not make the plane go any further. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well it is powered but since thrust produced by two engines is not enough to prevent alt loss its is,hmm "half-gliding"http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. In that condition thrust decreaces gliding angle, ie. speed source is partially exchange for alt and partially thrust.
As i said above i see no "weight" in lift equations too, but it just unthinkable for me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif that weight increase comes without a cost! That any effort to build gliders as light as possible is useless.

Kocur_
07-02-2005, 11:01 AM
KrasniyYastreb!

Does drag increase faster than lift when AoA rises or not?
If so what is the relation between lift/drag increase for different AoA's?

Ugly_Kid
07-02-2005, 12:14 PM
Glide ratio - and the best glide ratio in that - is an essential figure in very many of the performance calculations - even for a powered aircraft. You'll find it even in sustained turn calculations or climb. You'll also find the respective speed for the best glide ratio in quite a few formulas for best performance here or there.

Best glide ratio is independent of weight (at least as far as parabolic polar approximation is used), only the speed at which it is achieved varies. So if plane A reaches best glide ratio at speed X the same plane but lighter will reach it with lower speed and the same plane with more weight will reach it at higher speed. So if you test the planes with always the same speed you can expect inconsistencies. It is hardly realistic to assume Gladiator's best glide ratio to be obtained at the same speed as with Mustang.

Now, it is also unlikely that any of these birds should reach 16 as a glide ratio (at any speed) as P-38 does here and it is even more unlikely that a bi-plane like Gladiator performs better than most. The figures up to place 30. seem a bit optimistic. The best method would be trying to find the best possible glide ratio for each and every aircraft (at its own speed) since the differences at the respective speed can be large and first THEN look for the anomalities.

It should be noted that there is a huge difference if the prop is windmilling or if it's standing. (at least used to be when I tested earlier). You can stop the prop in every aircraft if you first slow down, wait for it to stop and first then accelerate to the gliding speed. The devicelink data will also help here by providing the pitch angle, the map coordinates and stuff which helps enormously in more accurate calculations.

As for weight and glide ratio, there is another important figure which is the minimum sinking speed. Whereas a shape of a polar remains constant it shifts with wingloading on a same aircraft. This means that, i.e, best glide ratio remains the same, but for example minimum sinking speed drops with increasing weight. Now, the B-17 example, the engines are used in the end to sustain a level flight, it turns out that with higher weight the minimum sinking speed which engines again have to counter would be more, thus weight reduction helps. Now if the engines went dead it wouldn't help anything to unload ballast to fly a longer distance, however, if you wanted to stay in the air for a longer time you should reduce the weight http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Somebody mentioned gliders - yes, in good weather you bring up the gliding speed and thus you proceed faster on route, but the drawback is on the thermals where you need to climb. With full ballast you need strong thermals to climb before glide, in weak thermals the ballast doesn't help a bit because you can't gain alt, so here you should dumb the ballast.

And FW, even if coming down like a stone still had a glide ratio close to 10, for sure. Only when gliding at some 270 km/h with ratio 1:10 you're dropping at 7.5 m/s which indeed feels like coming down like a stone. Also imagine performing the landing where you have to reduce this sinking speed to zero at the very last moment of the landing, the timing gets very critical. I know of a pilot who dead sticked Pitts Special which certainly glides worse than anything on earth, he went and drunk few beers afterwards and never flew again.

Ugly_Kid
07-02-2005, 12:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
KrasniyYastreb!

Does drag increase faster than lift when AoA rises or not?
If so what is the relation between lift/drag increase for different AoA's? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lift factor increases about linearly with AoA whereas the drag (induced one) increases in power of two with lift factor - so you could say
induced drag is ~constant*AoA^2

Kocur_
07-02-2005, 12:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
Lift factor increases about linearly with AoA whereas the drag (induced one) increases in power of two with lift factor - so you could say
induced drag is ~constant*AoA^2 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok! Weight doesnt affect L/D. Howgh!http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
More weight creates need for more lift. More lift through higher AoA is at high cost. But at gliding a plane doesnt ever fly at any higher AoA simply because its constantly descending assuming it holds constant gliding angle. Thus "more lift-&gt;higher AoA-&gt;high cost in performance by faster icrease of drag" is not case in gliding. Am i thinking correctly?

KrasniyYastreb
07-02-2005, 01:00 PM
Yes. For gliding you want to stay at max L/D, so you don't want to increse AoA. Instead you increase the dynamic pressure.

dyn. pressure = 0.5*(air density)*(velocity^2)*(wing area)

Also Lift= dyn.pres.*C_L and Drag = dyn.pres*C_D

So to get more lift you go faster. When you take the ratio of L/D the dynamic pressure cancels out and the increased speed has no effect on max gliding range.

I hope it is clear now. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Kocur_
07-02-2005, 02:31 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Thank you gents http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Lets look back on the table. If we assume that tests were conducted with equal carefullness for every plane and error margin of 100m is safe, we cant leave unnoticed certain anomalities.

I have some knowledge on Bf-109 design changes and i see no RL reason AT ALL for G6 Late to achieve better results than G2.
AFAIK airframe of Ki-84 was unchanged externally from a, through b to c.
Large Vokes air filter on Spitfire Vc trop cant be considered an aerodynamical advantage over Vb, yet Vc trop glides further.
Could ETC501 bomb rack and slightly changed shape of canopy create enough drag to make Fw190A9 glide 400m shorter than A6?
And thats only about different versions of the same type of plane.

Could possibly Fw190D be a better "glider" than Ki-43 Hayabusa/Oscar?


I'd like to make a suggestion: lets try to find and discuss such supposed anomalities and afterwards kindly ask Takata to re-check results in cases of planes showing strange bahaviour.

Takata_
07-02-2005, 04:51 PM
S~! Ugly Kid,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
Best glide ratio is independent of weight (at least as far as parabolic polar approximation is used), only the speed at which it is achieved varies. So if plane A reaches best glide ratio at speed X the same plane but lighter will reach it with lower speed and the same plane with more weight will reach it at higher speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
- Ok, as far as the glide ratio is a ratio, you can achieve it with a different quantity for both lift and drag, as far as you keep the right proportion for each. But, saying that it's independant of weight is aswell an error; the difference in weight will induce a difference in speed; the weight may change the aerodynamics - if the extra-load change the center of gravity - the result will be that the best ratio would be impossible to achieve (stalling the plane to keep a necessary AoA, inducing a speed impossible to reach, etc.)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So if you test the planes with always the same speed you can expect inconsistencies...The best method would be trying to find the best possible glide ratio for each and every aircraft (at its own speed) since the differences at the respective speed can be large and first THEN look for the anomalities. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
- Only the speed at start was the same for all the planes, then I tried empiricaly to find the best speed of glide for each plane, related to the maximum efficiency in glided distance. The problem is to achieve a reliable constant speed of sinking. The Wonderwooman view provide an accurate TAS, but there is no trim indicator. The cockpit view is better for controling the trim but IAS is in range of 10...
As far as this discussion goes, it seems to me that this test is much less accurate than expected. My first error margin was related to heading issues related to distance. Now, I'll have to add the constant sinking speed error and the difficulty to find the best gliding speed in relation to this siking speed error. Like you and KrasnyYastreb mentioned, beside my own experience, it's not hard to believe that an additional ~ 400-500 m error margin should be added to this test.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It should be noted that there is a huge difference if the prop is windmilling or if it's standing. (at least used to be when I tested earlier). You can stop the prop in every aircraft if you first slow down, wait for it to stop and first then accelerate to the gliding speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Setting the prop pitch to zero percent is the solution (or feather when available). Once in zero, the prop stop quickly. I slow down the plane when it spawn in order to trim it, then I slowly accelerate to the targeted speed.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The devicelink data will also help here by providing the pitch angle, the map coordinates and stuff which helps enormously in more accurate calculations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
All the needed map coordinates for calculation are available into the eventlog.lst. About devicelink, it will be usefull if I could use it to keep the plane to fly straight to my heading and fully trimmed, and at the same time, to keep the plane to a constant speed of sinking. If someone is able to do that, I'll redo this test straight away using this tool.

Takata.

Takata_
07-02-2005, 05:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KrasniyYastreb:
Yes. For gliding you want to stay at max L/D, so you don't want to increse AoA. Instead you increase the dynamic pressure.

So to get more lift you go faster. When you take the ratio of L/D the dynamic pressure cancels out and the increased speed has no effect on max gliding range. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
S~! KrasnyYastreb,
I get it myself too. Sorry for not understanding it first, because it's exactly what I was doing gliding, reducing the AoA to get more speed and increasing the lift so.

Kocur, that's why my explanation of AoA related to lift was a bit confused previously. Lift is generated by dynamic pressure or increase of surface - the last one cause a speed drop wilch is not good for gliding - and both are related to AoA in order to achieve more lift with opposite actions.

Kocur_
07-02-2005, 05:14 PM
Rgrt Takata!
So we all agree on aerodynamics http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Takata_
07-02-2005, 05:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Lets look back on the table. If we assume that tests were conducted with equal carefullness for every plane and error margin of 100m is safe....
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
Sadly it is not safe... This first test may be used as a guideline for a next step, but I don't think we can consider an error margin of 500-600 m safe enough to give us more than a guess about the FMs'.
As demonstrated, the most important value is an accurate sinking speed, and this accuracy is outside the range of my skill without spending hundred's of testing hours.
I'll check for a new method now, a devicelink controled plane could be the solution.

Takata.

KrasniyYastreb
07-02-2005, 10:53 PM
Its ok that you didn't understand, it can be pretty confusing - the beauty of aeronautics and aerospace engineering is that the basic principles are not hard to understand, but the deeper you go the more complicated it gets. I guess being an aerospace engineering student helps somewhat...

As for the test results, do not be discouraged. First off we can see which planes are too good by comparing with real-life data. Because any errors in the tests would only decrease range. (Although I'm reluctant to say it because it might open a Pandora's box of whining.)

The problem with achieiving accurate speed, is having a target to shoot for. In this regard real-life aerodynamic data can be a great help. But some things, such as the oswald efficiency factor, are notoriously hard to find. I think you can start by the results of your first tests.

Also I have an idea that maybe you can fly by instruments and convert TAS to IAS, and just watch the needle. Of course that depends on how air density is modelled in the sime, if it changes significantly fron 1000m to sea level. And a silly question, but is the ground where your plane comes down always flat and at zero height on the map?

Ugly_Kid
07-03-2005, 02:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Takata_:
- Ok, as far as the glide ratio is a ratio, you can achieve it with a different quantity for both lift and drag, as far as you keep the right proportion for each. But, saying that it's independant of weight is aswell an error; </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wrote best glide ratio. Weight affect a glide ratio in a particular speed but the "best" doesn't change (within reason) only the speed where it can be reached. Here is a real life example from ASW-28 glider (you'll see how minimum sink speed increases with wing load and you see how glide ratio 45 is always reached but with different speeds):
http://www.alexander-schleicher.de/service/polaren/28_polare.jpg

You see that with different wing loading the ratio remains but the speeds change - both sink speed and airspeed. So when trying to obtain the best glide ratio you shouln't try to glide with minimum sink speed the best glide is not that obvious. Yet, from a feeling I would not expect figures over 12-13 from any WW II aircraft at any speed. There is thruth in the c.g affecting the glide performance but this is a smaller effect - often competition glider pilot's load ballast on tail as well in order to get c.g as close to static margin as possible, it gives you a small gain.

According to my experience it is difficult to find this out from the game but couple of constant IAS glides should give you a feel at which speed the best glide could be - formerly, in the earlier versions the aircraft speed polar didn't react very pronouncedly to different speeds.

Takata_
07-03-2005, 06:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KrasniyYastreb:
...And a silly question, but is the ground where your plane comes down always flat and at zero height on the map? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
S~KrasniyYastreb,
Nothing is flater than sea at sea-level, the testing was performed above the sea.

I found how to deal with instrumentation as I downloaded the UDPGraph tool, and it should work fine to display the good instrument reading , at least as soon as I'll be able to make it read my game's data...
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
Takata.

Takata_
07-03-2005, 06:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
According to my experience it is difficult to find this out from the game but couple of constant IAS glides should give you a feel at which speed the best glide could be - formerly, in the earlier versions the aircraft speed polar didn't react very pronouncedly to different speeds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
S~UglyKid,
Thank you for all your interesting informations. About this speed issue in previous version, we already noticed that with 4.01 too. It's seems to be like for the climbing speed, the best sinking speed is very low, very close to stall speed, but vary from plane to plane. e.g. P-38 best speed is around 240-250 average TAS, and If I glide it bellow this level, the range will really decrease. On other planes, I had barely no difference inside the 175-200 range.

Takata.

Takata_
07-03-2005, 07:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
So when trying to obtain the best glide ratio you shouln't try to glide with minimum sink speed the best glide is not that obvious. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I didn't. If the table shows low sink speeds, that because it was the average speed I had the best glide.

I picked a reference plane for each family, then I tested a different range of speed related to his size, weight and wing area, like 220 - 200 - 180 km/h for a medium fighter. 90% of the time, the 180 km/h glide was the best distance. Then I performed the test again until I reached what I thought I won't beat.

Then, I tested another plane from the same family, and I started with the speed found with the first one used as reference glide. I tried to glide slower and faster to see if the distance increased or decreased, and so on...

The problem was to get a 'constant' sink rate. In fact, it was not most of the time, and the speed could vary from 10-20 km/h IAS during the glide.

Takata.

Ugly_Kid
07-03-2005, 01:59 PM
rgr now I see, so you indeed put a lot of effort into this. Then there are really couple of interesting anomalities. For example I think gladiator has nothing to search among the top performers and the figures for top performers seem fairly high...Mistake here or there I doubt you produce an error on an optimistic side...

KrasniyYastreb
07-04-2005, 11:26 AM
I will hazard to say that the P-38 seems too good. For the P-38L the L/Dmax was actually 13.5, but Takata got 16km.

On the other hand the F6F-3 is right on.

Source:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-468/app-a2.htm

Takata_
07-04-2005, 04:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KrasniyYastreb:
I will hazard to say that the P-38 seems too good. For the P-38L the L/Dmax was actually 13.5, but Takata got 16km. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
S~ KrasnyYastreb,
... and the same source quote for the mustang:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The zero-lift drag coefficient of 0.0163 was the lowest of any of the aircraft analyzed herein, and the corresponding value of the maximum lift-drag ratio was 14.6. The Mustang was therefore an extremely clean airplane. The aerodynamic cleanness of the aircraft was due, in large measure, to careful attention to detailed design and continued refinement of the aircraft during its production lifetime. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>