Dora climb rates

[GrapeJam]

I am not going to argue. The profile wasn't perfect but it was good enough.

 

"No climbing after 2Km"? :music_whistling:

 

That does not sound smart.

 

You're free to watch the track yourself, in the track you did not climb past 2km.

 

You do know that airplanes have to lower the nose at some point to maintain Vy?

 

That is the setting I used is climb and combat power and it was optimistic but close enough. Live with it.

 

 

 

First of all best rate and best angle are not the same thing. The difference to altitude is not that dramatic between Vx and Vy.

 

 

 

The big advantage of Vx is you cover a lot less distance along the ground for that altitude gain.

 

Right, any proof that the German used this method? Because in every performance test I've seen the tester alway tried to get the best climb rate possible.

 

Climbing at Vy with Steig u Kampfleistung does not mean climbing at Vx with Sondernotleistung will not result in a faster time to altitude. You have a lot more power to work with at Sondernotleistung.

 

Does it matter? What we're talking about here is what affect performance in a dogfight because everybody use maximum power, and thus Sonder nottleigstung. The plane may perform correctly steig u kamfleigstun(even thought clear it doesn't, because you achieved the time to altitude despite the plane weighting 100kg heavier and you did not hold the plane steadily) but may not perform correctly in Sonder nottleigstung, i.e, having too much power and thus directly affecting the performance in a dogfight.

[GrapeJam]

Yes they were very capable. The difference is your definition of accuracy is not the same as theirs or any aeronautical engineer.

 

The Dora using C3 should get to 6 KM in 4.94 minutes at Sondernotleistung. Plus or minus up to 20% depending on the stage of development is considered accurate climb estimation. Focke Wulf factory climb guarantee was 10% for a production machine.

 

 

So....24M/s with a 20% variation = 19 M/s to 28.8 M/s for a prototype is good agreement and accurate to the engineer. Our production machines average will fall in that range.

 

For a production machine if the average was 24M/s with a 10% variation = 21.6 to 26.4M/s is service acceptable and accurate to the engineer.

 

What kind of messed up argument is this?

[Crumpp]

Right, any proof that the German used this method?

 

Ahhh...they flew airplanes??

 

Here...read for yourself....

 

Geschwindigkeit des besten steigfluges...

Edited January 19, 2015 by Crumpp

[GrapeJam]

Ahhh...they flew airplanes??

 

And every test we've seen had them try to get to the highest altitude as fast as possible, they were being bombed, you know?

[Crumpp]

What kind of messed up argument is this?

 

Ahhh...the kind you get from graduating college?

 

:smilewink:

 

Maybe I just read it somewhere.

 

[Crumpp]

ou're free to watch the track yourself, in the track you did not climb past 2km.

 

One more time...reducing climb rate to maintain Vy.....

 

It is a pilot thing.

[GrapeJam]

Ahhh...the kind you get from graduating college?

 

:smilewink:

 

Maybe I just read it somewhere.

 

 

Nope it's not ok, those planes were extremely rare exceptions (and given Germany's late war shoddy production the plane would be more likely to underperform than overperform according to spec), and it makes no logical sense to model a plane overperform by more than 20%.

 

And not to mention that the plane in game is supposed to be limited to 1.8, it's overperformance exceeds far even those of 2.02 ata.

[GrapeJam]

One more time...reducing climb rate to maintain Vy.....

 

It is a pilot thing.

 

Did you even watch the track? In your track you.did.not.climb.past.2km

[Crumpp]

Well, the one I watch goes to 6 Km. I leveled off and went into a 90 degree dive to see the effects of exceeding Vne. The control surfaces left the airplane at Vne and I crashed.

[Crumpp]

those planes were extremely rare exceptions

 

Oh...can you prove that?

 

You want me to throw some scatter plots up and test that theory?

[julian265]

Nope it's not ok, those planes were extremely rare exceptions (and given Germany's late war shoddy production the plane would be more likely to underperform than overperform according to spec), and it makes no logical sense to model a plane overperform by more than 20%.

 

And not to mention that the plane in game is supposed to be limited to 1.8, it's overperformance exceeds far even those of 2.02 ata.

 

You really need to confirm the engine settings that were used for the particular chart you are referring to, then use them in the sim and compare. Obviously the Germans cared greatly about maximum climb rates, but that doesn't mean that all charts used all-out-maximum engine settings.

 

If you can't find what settings were used for a chart, then you can't compare to it.

 

On a different note - my gut tells me that +/-20% is a ridiculous tolerance for performance. IMO it was more likely to be +/-10%, due to the ambiguity between 20% variation (ie +/-10%) and +/-20%. Feel free to show documentation that says otherwise though.

[GrapeJam]

Oh...can you prove that?

 

You want me to throw some scatter plots up and test that theory?

 

Oh, you're free to show your exceptions, doesn't change the fact that they were exceptions, it's a well known fact that late war German production was shoddy due to allied bombing, insuffiencent number of skilled, workers, lack of materials, lack of time.

 

You really need to confirm the engine settings that were used for the particular chart you are referring to, then use them in the sim and compare. Obviously the Germans cared greatly about maximum climb rates, but that doesn't mean that all charts used all-out-maximum engine settings.

 

If you can't find what settings were used for a chart, then you can't compare to it.

 

On a different note - my gut tells me that +/-20% is a ridiculous tolerance for performance. IMO it was more likely to be +/-10%, due to the ambiguity between 20% variation (ie +/-10%) and +/-20%. Feel free to show documentation that says otherwise though.

 

The performance of this test (specifically, speed):

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw_190_D-9_C3.pdf

matches the speed that was tested with 2.02 ata:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190d-9-levelspeed-comp-metric.jpg

By comparison, here's the speed that was tested with 1.8 ata:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw_190_D-9_210002_FB2_level-speed.jpg

[Crumpp]

GrapeJam,

 

The performance is plausible....optimistic but plausible. The only person who knows if it is the performance they intended is Yo-Yo. I understand some of what he is juggling to produce these FM's and IMHO he has done some excellent work. That is why this the only sim I have had any real interest in.

 

I am not computer programmer but I do have quite a bit of formal education and practical experience when it comes to both flying, fixing, and the science of airplanes. I am hanging around waiting to fly a jet right now. Been oncall all day for it despite the fact operations has nothing planned at the moment. :mad:

 

What I have seen is the DCS team communicates, is knowledgeable, and addresses issues. I am confident that if there is one and this is not the performance they intended, it will get fixed.

 

my gut tells me that +/-20% is a ridiculous tolerance for performance.

 

That tolerance is for prototypes before they are built and for concept aircraft it is even wider. Once the plane is built and flow, the estimates get more accurate. Although some companies have ended with designs that hit the market with a variation that wide but its rare. Everybody has a lemon now and then!!

[Crumpp]

matches the speed that was tested with 2.02 ata:

 

Ok GrapeJam...

 

That chart is stupid. It has uncorrected performance in a non-standard atmosphere mixed in with CINA data and everything else.

 

In terms of comparing aircraft performance it is trash plain and simple. Whoever made it does not understand the documents.

[GrapeJam]

Ok GrapeJam...

 

That chart is stupid. It has uncorrected performance in a non-standard atmosphere mixed in with CINA data and everything else.

 

In terms of comparing aircraft performance it is trash plain and simple. Whoever made it does not understand the documents.

 

Yeah, except the bottom chart clearly showed that it was tested at 1.8 ata, and had clearly inferior speed(30-40km/h slower) than the one tested with C3, how do you explain that?

[Solty]

One more time...reducing climb rate to maintain Vy.....

 

It is a pilot thing.

...but you are acusing me of zooming even though only time I put my nose lower (a little bit below 5degrees, never at 0 or negative value)was when I was approaching stall notified by the buffeting of the airplane.

 

I was still able to climb all the time at full power up to 9000m in 7 and half minutes without ever using additional energy gained by level flight or dive.

 

GrapeJam,

 

The performance is plausible....optimistic but plausible. The only person who knows if it is the performance they intended is Yo-Yo. I understand some of what he is juggling to produce these FM's and IMHO he has done some excellent work. That is why this the only sim I have had any real interest in.

 

I am not computer programmer but I do have quite a bit of formal education and practical experience when it comes to both flying, fixing, and the science of airplanes. I am hanging around waiting to fly a jet right now. Been oncall all day for it despite the fact operations has nothing planned at the moment.

 

What I have seen is the DCS team communicates, is knowledgeable, and addresses issues. I am confident that if there is one and this is not the performance they intended, it will get fixed.

 

 

 

That tolerance is for prototypes before they are built and for concept aircraft it is even wider. Once the plane is built and flow, the estimates get more accurate. Although some companies have ended with designs that hit the market with a variation that wide but its rare. Everybody has a lemon now and then!!

 

Then maybe you should get interested in other sims too as they have climb rates covered in very similar fashion. And I don't have to tell you big of a advantage overblown climbrate is.

 

Plane that climbs 25m/s instead of 20 is a big difference. It is as if P-51 was able to climb with full load at 21m/s would that be "plausible"?

 

If I am able to reach the 9000m mark with wobbling around and almost stalling without diving for speed or leveling off... then tell me how is it a zoom climb.

 

How is it that P-51 seems to have a good climb rate ranging from 18m/s at SL to 11m/s at 7000m at a corresponding weight? How is it that it actually fits with the data on P-51D, and German tests and planes always have discrepancies.

 

 

PS. Can you make a test and then use tacview to show us your time to climb chart? Do it from 200m to 9000m. Let's see what you get. Tacview is free btw.

Edited January 19, 2015 by Solty

[julian265]

That tolerance is for prototypes before they are built and for concept aircraft it is even wider. Once the plane is built and flow, the estimates get more accurate. Although some companies have ended with designs that hit the market with a variation that wide but its rare. Everybody has a lemon now and then!!

Ah, I see. I thought it was for production.

[GrapeJam]

Hell, you know what? This is the chart that clearly showed the D9 tested at 2.02 ata, it matches the D9 + C3 test perfectly:

[USARStarkey]

Yes they were very capable. The difference is your definition of accuracy is not the same as theirs or any aeronautical engineer.

 

The Dora using C3 should get to 6 KM in 4.94 minutes at Sondernotleistung. Plus or minus up to 20% depending on the stage of development is considered accurate climb estimation. Focke Wulf factory climb guarantee was 10% for a production machine.

 

 

So....24M/s with a 20% variation = 19 M/s to 28.8 M/s for a prototype is good agreement and accurate to the engineer. Our production machines average will fall in that range.

 

For a production machine if the average was 24M/s with a 10% variation = 21.6 to 26.4M/s is service acceptable and accurate to the engineer.

 

Thats got the be the most ridiculous things Ive ever heard. The calculations would have been based (and yo-yo-s FM presumably) on data gathered from testing of a either models or a aircraft in a wind tunnel. Engine power would have been exacting. Variations in real planes would have results from deviations from perfect manufacture, wear of engines and all sorts of idiosyncrasies.... What you just argued would allow for Yo Yo or any other game dev the ability to model a P-51 at combat weight a climb rate of 4300fpm and top speed of 530mph.... its only + or minus 20% after all. Heck, with that logic the 109 can P-51 could SWAP PLACES with regards to climb rate......the 109K can now climb at 3600fpm. :megalol:

 

Do you even notice that the difference of 20% is more than the difference of a 190 with and without MW50? You could just remove MW50 from the game and tell everyone who complains to quite their whining since its withing 20% either way....:doh:

[USARStarkey]

...but you are acusing me of zooming even though only time I put my nose lower (a little bit below 5degrees, never at 0 or negative value)was when I was approaching stall notified by the buffeting of the airplane.

 

I was still able to climb all the time at full power up to 9000m in 7 and half minutes without ever using additional energy gained by level flight or dive.

 

 

Then maybe you should get interested in other sims too as they have climb rates covered in very similar fashion. And I don't have to tell you big of a advantage overblown climbrate is.

 

Plane that climbs 25m/s instead of 20 is a big difference. It is as if P-51 was able to climb with full load at 21m/s would that be "plausible"?

 

If I am able to reach the 9000m mark with wobbling around and almost stalling without diving for speed or leveling off... then tell me how is it a zoom climb.

 

How is it that P-51 seems to have a good climb rate ranging from 18m/s at SL to 11m/s at 7000m at a corresponding weight? How is it that it actually fits with the data on P-51D, and German tests and planes always have discrepancies.

 

Yes, because crump thinks that through careful pilot application, I can reduce my time to climb so much as to preclude caring about sustained climb at all! Nevermind that zooming would result in increased angle that would eventually lose speed and then your LOSE climb rate for quite a while as you would have to re-accelerate after you drop the nose. SHHH averages.....With such expert zooming one has to wonder why the the ultra slick, or ultra massive P-51 or P-47 dont just rocket to 30k in 2min with proper application of micro zoom. I guess that would solve all my dog-fighting woes in multiplayer. Next time a 190 or 109 tries to climb out, Ill just apply the secret micro zoom techniques and shoot past him like a rocket! :pilotfly:

[Yo-Yo]

I am not going to argue. The profile wasn't perfect but it was good enough.

 

"No climbing after 2Km"? :music_whistling:

 

That does not sound smart.

 

You do know that airplanes have to lower the nose at some point to maintain Vy?

 

That is the setting I used is climb and combat power and it was optimistic but close enough. Live with it.

 

 

 

First of all best rate and best angle are not the same thing. The difference to altitude is not that dramatic between Vx and Vy.

 

 

 

The big advantage of Vx is you cover a lot less distance along the ground for that altitude gain.

 

 

 

I wouldn't use this guys take off technique but he is right about there is little difference between Vx and Vy in terms of time to altitude.

 

http://www.advancedpilot.com/articles.php?action=article&articleid=1842

 

Climbing at Vy with Steig u Kampfleistung does not mean climbing at Vx with Sondernotleistung will not result in a faster time to altitude. You have a lot more power to work with at Sondernotleistung.

 

 

I am surprised the engine held up and did not over-temp with the cooling gills closed. The Dora oil temps would be at the top of the green arc at Vy at Steig u Kampfleistung with the cooling gills closed. The higher velocity of aids cooling.

 

 

 

No there is not.....

 

What are the atmospheric conditions in the game?

 

It looks like standard temp 15C but I dont' get a good read on the altimeters. The P-51 looks like it defaults to 31.13inHg and the Dora's is just unreadable.

 

I just tried 3000 rpm (1.45 ata at SL) climb. For 6 km I have 6 min 46 s or 6.75 min starting from 50 m absolute altiude and 15C SL temperature. There is no difference with the curve on the chart. So, the model matches the data at certain power rate, so if the power rate is increased he climb rate will match the real plane even if there is no certain data for this rate.

 

Though cooling flaps have minor effect for the climb they were in AUTO but actually they were open.

 

UPD Sorry it was 6.2 min for climb.

Edited January 19, 2015 by Yo-Yo

[USARStarkey]

I just tried 3000 rpm (1.45 ata at SL) climb. For 6 km I have 6 min 46 s or 6.75 min starting from 50 m absolute altiude and 15C SL temperature. There is no difference with the curve on the chart. So, the model matches the data at certain power rate, so if the power rate is increased he climb rate will match the real plane even if there is no certain data for this rate.

 

Though cooling flaps have minor effect for the climb they were in AUTO but actually they were open.

 

Except that is has been repeatedly demonstrated that at Full power in game we get considerably more than the chart indicated.

[Yo-Yo]

Except that is has been repeatedly demonstrated that at Full power in game we get considerably more than the chart indicated.

 

What chart?

[USARStarkey]

What chart?

 

Perhaps I misunderstand your last post? But in my test I got 5000-4600fpm all the way up to 12000ft, airspeed increasing the entire time. I am not referring to a chart, unless you mean what I am comparing it to, which is the tests where 21-22m/s is shown for 1.8 ata. Anyhow Bed. 6am. I will respond later to whatever you reply with.

Edited January 19, 2015 by USARStarkey

[GrapeJam]

What chart?

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw_190_D-9_C3.pdf

 

In this test is the C3 fuel running at 2.02 ata, in this test the Dora climbs to 9km in 9.5 minutes, the in game Dora(supposedly limited to 1.8 ata) can climb to 9km in 7 minutes 30 seconds, if the FM's accurate how is this possible?

Edited January 19, 2015 by GrapeJam