PDA

View Full Version : Mark 9 speed testing oddity



Bull_dog_
05-23-2004, 04:19 PM
Did a little speed testing to check out the differences from the 3 versions and I got some peculiar results...here goes:

Testing method...qmb, tropical map, put in the spitfire version full fuel, ammo etc... and head towards open water... I used the "c" version.

At 100 meters all three varients wanted to settle in at around 540km/hr... at 3000 meters the speeds were again within 5 km/hr as near as I could tell but higher (can't remember exactly what now).

I went to Crimea map and tested the Hf and regular version at 7500 meters and got nearly identical speeds ( I think around 680) ...by this time I thought maybe there was a bug or mistake made where the same flight models were used the different aircraft; so I went back to tropical map and went to 9000 meters...here there was a difference but not as much as I expected: Lf about 640...regular around 660 and Hf around 680.

Is this correct from a relative perspective? I expect the HF to be faster at extreme altitudes, but 3000 meters and below I would have thought the LF version would have a good 30 or 40km/hr maybe more on the other two varients? I don't know what or how they performed in real life, other than the LF was optimized for low altitude and Hf for high altitude...didn't really know there was a "normal" flavor between the two, but it seems you have to get to extreme altitude (over 7500meters) to see the difference.

I'd be interested in someone else confirming or denying this and if it is a bug then hopefully Oleg will be notified...if not then I'll just start flying the HF version all the time http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

My disclaimer: I don't pretend to be a scientific tester and I'm not looking at how the aircraft are performing against published numbers, but rather how they perform against each other at different altitudes. The maps and load outs shouldn't matter as long as they are consistant and they were from my perspective.

Bull_dog_
05-23-2004, 04:19 PM
Did a little speed testing to check out the differences from the 3 versions and I got some peculiar results...here goes:

Testing method...qmb, tropical map, put in the spitfire version full fuel, ammo etc... and head towards open water... I used the "c" version.

At 100 meters all three varients wanted to settle in at around 540km/hr... at 3000 meters the speeds were again within 5 km/hr as near as I could tell but higher (can't remember exactly what now).

I went to Crimea map and tested the Hf and regular version at 7500 meters and got nearly identical speeds ( I think around 680) ...by this time I thought maybe there was a bug or mistake made where the same flight models were used the different aircraft; so I went back to tropical map and went to 9000 meters...here there was a difference but not as much as I expected: Lf about 640...regular around 660 and Hf around 680.

Is this correct from a relative perspective? I expect the HF to be faster at extreme altitudes, but 3000 meters and below I would have thought the LF version would have a good 30 or 40km/hr maybe more on the other two varients? I don't know what or how they performed in real life, other than the LF was optimized for low altitude and Hf for high altitude...didn't really know there was a "normal" flavor between the two, but it seems you have to get to extreme altitude (over 7500meters) to see the difference.

I'd be interested in someone else confirming or denying this and if it is a bug then hopefully Oleg will be notified...if not then I'll just start flying the HF version all the time http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

My disclaimer: I don't pretend to be a scientific tester and I'm not looking at how the aircraft are performing against published numbers, but rather how they perform against each other at different altitudes. The maps and load outs shouldn't matter as long as they are consistant and they were from my perspective.